While Amartya Sen won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1998 for illustrating this very concept, one does not need to be a Nobel laureate to understand the crisis currently facing 13.3 million people in the Horn of Africa due to a crippling combination of famine, war, and drought. Nor does one have to have a PhD in Economics to take action.

These 13.3 million Kenyans, Ethiopians, Somalians, Eritreans and Djiboutians are caught in the worst drought the world has seen in 60 years, the worst famine the world has seen in 20 years, and live in one of the world’s most war torn regions.

But despite the fact this is currently the world’s greatest humanitarian crisis in terms of the number of people dying, starving, and being displaced, there is relatively little awareness of it.

To build awareness of this crisis, today, November 9^th, is the FWD Day of Action, sponsored by the US Agency for International Development. The goal of FWD (Famine.War.Drought) Day is for the facts of the Horn of Africa crisis to be forwarded 13.3 million times in honor of those in need.

Check out the FWD website, learn about the crisis, and take action.

Martin Luther King Jr.

“An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal. Let me give another explanation. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law. Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up that state’s segregation laws was democratically elected? Throughout Alabama all sorts of devious methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some counties in which, even though Negroes constitute a majority of the population, not a single Negro is registered. Can any law enacted under such circumstances be considered democratically structured?

Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First-Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.”

This excerpt from Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”, articulates the disparity that too often exists between law and justice. MLK Jr. wrote the letter in April 1963 while incarcerated for non violent protests in Birmingham, Alabama but its message is just as relevant today, in every country around the world, as it was during the American civil rights movement.

Counter intuitively, it is often under the guise of law and constitutionalism that justice and democracy are so often subverted. Such was the case with over one hundred years of legalized segregation in the United States, and slavery before then. Today, we can see obvious examples in the cases of stolen elections and “democratically elected” autocrats around the world. Take for example, Gbagbo’s use of the constitutional council to derail the democratic will of the people in Ivory Coast – a tactic that has also recently been used in Madagascar, Zimbabwe, and Kenya.

The full letter is well worth the read. An incredible piece of prose, it serves as a reminder of the injustices suffered by so many in this country and the courage of civil rights leaders like MLK Jr. – and, critically, to reaffirm the fight against injustice today, both in this country and beyond. For as MLK Jr. states in the letter, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

Ouattara's besieged stronghold, the Hotel du Golf. Photo credit: Rebecca Blackwell/Associated Press

The election crisis in Ivory Coast continues with little to no progress towards a resolution. Ouattara remains entrenched in the Hotel du Golf while Gbagbo remains in the presidential palace and in control of the military.

Earlier this week a delegation of four African leaders – President Ernest Bai Koroma of Sierra Leone, President Pedro Pires of Cape Verde, and President Thomas Boni Yayi of Benin representing ECOWAS and Prime Minister Raila Odinga of Kenya representing the African Union – met with Ouattara and Gbagbo to negotiate an end to the crisis. The second such visit in the last ten days, the African leaders walked away with the dual presidents still at an impasse.

Reports following the meetings indicated that the leaders offered Gbagbo amnesty if he would step aside. Gbagbo refused, asserting that he was the legitimate, democratically elected president of Ivory Coast and that was not negotiable.

During the talks, Gbagbo repeated his earlier proposal to hold an international commission of inquiry into the election. This proposal, however, has largely been seen as another attempt by Gbagbo to stall – something he has made a name for himself doing. Called “le Boulanger”, the baker, because he rolls his opponents in flour, Gbagbo has already spent five years over his constitutional term in the presidency by repeatedly delaying elections.

Although talk of a military intervention is emerging, for now it seems unlikely. West African nations have previously used military force under the name Economic Community Monitoring Group (ECOMOG), but only to intervene in civil wars, not to oust governments, and in different logistical circumstances. For example, ECOMOG intervened in both Sierra Leone and Liberia when governments were besieged by rebels, but in those situations the governments still controlled critical land and sea ports. In Ivory Coast, these are still controlled by Gbagbo, significantly increasing the operational difficulty and need for additional military support, the most likely candidate being France. However, analysts describe any military support from the former colonial power as political dynamite.

But in addition to the logistical difficulties, many oppose a military intervention due to the risk of tipping the standoff into widespread violence. For example, John Atta Mills, President of Ghana – a nation that would be a key component in a West African led intervention – said that Ghana would not take sides in a military conflict. “I personally do not think the military option will solve the problem in Ivory Coast,” he said. “We have about one million Ghanaians living in Ivory Coast who could be victims of any military intervention.”

While a diplomatic solution is clearly the first choice, the current standoff is not without violence – a UN report estimated at least 173 have been killed in post election violence to date.

Short of a military intervention, the international community has placed sanctions on Gbagbo, his wife, and his top aides, freezing assets and creating barriers to do business with the individuals. Recently, the West African Central Bank recognized Ouattara as the President of Ivory Coast and has given him access to Ivory Coast’s reserves previously controlled by Gbagbo.

While the international community is attempting to put Gbagbo under siege through these sanctions, on the ground in Ivory Coast it is Ouattara that is besieged. Despite a promise to lift the blockade earlier this week, Gbagbo’s forces continue to surround the Hotel du Golf which remains protected by UN troops. A New York Times report indicates that the hotel, bustling with activity in the first days of the standoff, is becoming increasingly haggard under the siege. Supplies can only reach the hotel via UN helicopters although food for the staff and troops guarding the facility has apparently not been an issue. Nonetheless, Ouattara and his staff continue to hold cabinet meetings daily, waiting to take full control of the country and strategizing an end to the crisis.

At this point in time the two presidents remain in a chess game, each waiting for the other’s position to change. As it stands, Gbagbo’s military control seems to be outweighing Ouattara’s international support on the see-saw of power on the ground in Ivory Coast. But with the support of the international community behind Ouattara, and as Gbagbo’s financial resources diminish, that scale will likely tip. The questions that continue to play out are how long will it take for that to happen and at what cost to democracy and security in the Ivory Coast.

The election pitted long time opposition leader Alassane Ouattara against the incumbent President Laurent Gbagbo, who has been in power since 2000, overstaying his constitutional term by five years. Ouattara, who draws support from the largely Muslim north, was recognized by Ivory Coast’s Electoral Commission and independent election observers including the UN, US, and EU as the winner of the election by a nine point margin.  But Gbagbo, who draws support from the largely Christian south, has refused to accept these results, employing a mixture of force, election technicalities, and thinly veiled kleptocracy to remain in power.

Earlier this week, both took an oath of office, setting up two parallel governments in the already divided country. Gbagbo and his coalition remain entrenched in the Presidential complex while Ouattara has set up office and conducted cabinet meetings in the basement of a faded luxury hotel, which is heavily protected by UN peacekeepers. Adding to the threat of violence is that both camps have military backing. Gbagbo reportedly is still in control of the national military while Ouattara’s newly appointed Prime Minister, Guillame Soro, is the leader of the well armed rebel “New Forces” in the north. Although violence at this point has remained sporadic, both camps are watching one another warily with neither showing signs of backing down – a nightmare scenario with the very real possibility of a renewed civil war.

The Backstory

Ivory Coast was long seen as a haven of peace and prosperity in West Africa. Ruled since independence from France in 1960 by Félix Houphouët-Boigny until his death in 1993, Ivory Coast was never a bastion of democracy, but it was for stability and economic success. As the world’s largest cocoa producer, living standards in Ivory Coast were much higher than in its West African neighbors – some of the poorest countries in the world. For this reason, Ivory Coast’s economic success attracted large numbers of immigrants, many of which settled in the north of the country due to familial, religious, and ethnic ties.

But in the 1990s as global prices for the country’s cocoa, coffee, and cotton fell, civil unrest rose. Many Ivorians began to resent the one party state and after a period of strikes by civil servants, Houphouët-Boigny conceded to the first multi party elections in 1990. Although Houphouët-Boigny won these elections, his death three years later opened up political space that previously did not exist. Filling this power vacuum with democratic, multi party politics has been at the core of much of Ivory Coast’s troubles since.

But the political instability caused by this power vacuum and the introduction of multi party politics was augmented and exacerbated by ethnic tensions that were previously suppressed. In office, Houphouët-Boigny was careful to avoid ethnic dispites – making sure, for example, that a member of each ethnic group was represented in his cabinet. Following his death, however, populist politicians exploited these tensions in part to carve out their own political space by isolating, dividing, and eventually disenfranchising opposition groups.

Issues of nationality and ethnicity were exploited in particular by Houphouët-Boigny’s successor, Henri Konan Bédié the President of the National Assembly, who assumed the Presidency after a brief power struggle with Ouattara, who was Prime Minister at the time. In office, Bédié popularized the term “Ivorité,” French for “Ivoriness” or “Ivority” as part of a campaign to protect the cultural identity of the Ivorian people. In reality, Bédié’s Ivorité campaign was xenophobic and divisive as the large number of first and second generation migrants – a quarter of the total population – became subjects of intense discrimination.

Cultural identity continued to become such a polarizing issue that by the 1995 elections following Bédié’s transitional presidency many northerners were refused national identity cards and the right to vote. Ouattara was banned from running outright because officials claimed his parents were from Burkina Faso, thereby disqualifying him due to an electoral reform law Bédié passed. Ouattara’s Rally of Republicans party (RDR) as well as the other main opposition party, the Ivorian Popular Front (FPI), headed by Gbagbo, boycotted the elections. Bédié won with 96% of the vote.

Political instability, ethnic tensions, and economic malaise continued over the next four years leading to a 1999 military coup that ousted Bédié and replaced him with retired General Robert Guéï, a former member of Houphouët-Boigny’s government. Guéï pledged he would allow new legislative and presidential elections within the year and that he would not be a candidate. While Guéï kept his first promise and delivered elections in 2000, he broke his second and ran for the presidency. This time Gbagbo did stand for election, representing the FPI, but Ouattara was still disqualified due to his alleged Burkinabe nationality, despite producing a birth certificate showing otherwise. Gbagbo won the election, but it was not without incident as Guéï refused to relinquish power and only did so after a spate of street protests resulted in over 150 deaths as rioters clashed with security forces.

But Ouattara’s disqualification a second time did not sit well with his large constituency in the north. This nominal disenfranchisement of northern voters, combined with the actual disenfranchisement of thousands over nationality disputes and years of state sponsored discrimination boiled over on the morning of September 19^th, 2002 when a group of northern soldiers mutinied with simultaneous attacks in multiple cities across the country starting the Ivorian civil war. Pro government forces responded and clashed with the rebels. The rebel forces quickly took control of the north and were close to taking control of the capital, Abidjan, which lies on the Southeastern edge of the country, but French forces intervened.

Although a cease fire was signed a month later and a peace agreement was first signed in 2003, many of the major political and ethnic issues that ignited the civil war – nationality, voting rights, and qualifications for holding office – remained unsettled and the rebel controlled north and government controlled south remained divided. Outbreaks of violence continued to occur regularly until a 2007 peace sharing agreement created a new transitional government with Soro, leader of the rebel “New Forces”, as Prime Minister and Gbagbo remaining as President. The peace deal also set the terms of the most recent election – notably, that Ouattara would be allowed to run and that the UN had to certify the election results for them to be valid.

The 2010 Presidential Elections

Thus the runoff Presidential election that took place two weeks ago carried historic significance – it was the culmination of the 2007 peace deal designed to finally reunify the country.

But who won the election?

The Ivory Coast Electoral Commission, an independent body charged with administering the election and counting the votes confirmed Ouattara as the winner with 54% of the votes compared with Gbagbo’s 46%. Election observers for the UN, US, and EU all confirmed these results recognizing Ouattara as the winner. On Tuesday, November 31^st, as the Electoral Commission was about to announce these results on national television, a member of Gbagbo’s camp physically grabbed them and tore them up (watch a video of the incident here). Speaking under armed guard at a hotel two days later on Thursday, December 2^nd, the electoral Commission head, Youssouf Bakoyak, proceeded with the announcement naming Ouattara the winner.

Soon after, however, Paul Yao N’Dre, a known ally of Gbagbo and head of the Constitutional Council, a government body charged with verifying the election results, said that the results of the Electoral Commission were “null and void” because they came after the legal deadline of Wednesday, December 1^st. Speaking for the Council, he then announced Gbagbo as the winner of the election by a count of 51% to 49% after nullifying results of seven northern regions where Ouattara draws the most support. N’Dre cited voter intimidation of Gbagbo supporters as the reason for discounting the regions, saying, “The irregularities are of such a nature that they invalidate the vote.”

The UN mission in Ivory Coast said that it did receive reports of violence in parts of the west and north during the election, but overall voting seemed peaceful and any irregularities did not overturn the overall results reported by the Electoral Commission – a key detail as the 2007 peace deal requires the election results to be verified by the UN. Thus even granting the Constitutional Council’s decision, Gbagbo still does not have a constitutionally valid claim to the presidency.

A country in peril

While constitutional technicalities are disputed, life in the Ivory Coast is growing increasingly tense as the deadlock between the parallel governments continues. Over the past two weeks tens of thousands of people have demonstrated against Gbagbo, particularly in the northern city of Bouaké, a stronghold of the 2002 rebellion. Protests in the capital, Abidjan, have been suppressed by soldiers and riot police. Reports are emerging that the government’s “death squads” have returned – secret gangs of soldiers that beat, abduct, and kill people in the night – a brutal intimidation tactic used by pro government forces during the civil war.

In addition to living under the threat of violence, Ivorians are suffering economically as the election crisis continues. Meat, fish, and fuel are running short and BBC reporters have found that the price of sugar has tripled in some areas, while beef and potatoes have risen by 25% to 60%.

Foreign radio and television broadcasts are blocked and the state television broadcasts still referring to Mr Gbagbo as President with the road to the station guarded by Ivorian troops still under Gbagbo’s control.

To date, little progress has been made to end the political stalemate, with both parties entrenched and seemingly unwilling to compromise. Last week, Thabo Mbeki, former president of South Africa and a key negotiator during the Ivorian civil war and in the 2008 election dispute between Mugabe and Tsvangirai in Zimbabwe that ended in a power sharing agreement, was called in to meet with both parties. However, Mbeki left after two days of deadlock.

But a compromise between the two, particularly some sort of power sharing deal, may not be the best solution. With the risk of a renewed civil war at worst and continued violence and food shortages at best it is clear that a solution needs to be found as soon as possible. But solving the crisis with a power sharing deal, after Gbagbo lost by nearly a ten point margin, sets a dangerous precedent and may only serve to cause continued resentment and instability in the divided country. Making this very point, Botswana’s president Khama Ian Khama strongly condemned Gbagbo’s actions and any peace sharing deal saying, “Elections there were hijacked by the ruling party and if that’s going to happen every time someone wants to dispute an election result and then may stay in power by default through a mechanism of power sharing – it’s wrong!”

What then can be done to end this political stalemate? For now mounting international pressure is being applied to Gbagbo and his camp in the hopes of making his position no longer tenable, forcing him to concede the election. Last week, after a meeting of seven regional heads of state, ECOWAS, the Economic Community of West African States, issued a statement recognizing Ouattara as the winner of the election saying that Gbagbo should “yield power without delay in the best interest of the Ivorian people.” Meanwhile, ECOWAS has suspended Ivory Coast from all of the bloc’s activities. Likewise, the African Union suspended Ivory Coast on Thursday until Gbagbo hands over power to Ouattara. The UN Security Council became involved last week, affirming Ouattara as the winner and threatening to put sanctions on any person obstructing the peace process or the UN mission in the country. Similarly, the US and the EU are both reportedly considering targeted sanctions on Gbagbo and his supporters, possibly including visa bans and asset freezes.

While this strategy of attrition may be the best method for the international community to help bring an end to the crisis, it is one that depends on time – a resource that appears to be rapidly diminishing. Meanwhile, citizens of Ivory Coast remain in a divided country.

Developing Democracies will continue to update on this story as it progresses.

Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon released a video message commemorating the occasion and affirming that development can only fully take place within the context of democracy saying:

Development is far more likely to take hold if people are given a genuine say in their own governance and a chance to share in the fruits of progress. On this international day of democracy, let us recognize that democratic governance is a yearning shared and voiced by people the world over.  Democracy is a goal in its own right, and an indispensable means for achieving development for all humankind.

The Secretary General also noted that “we should all be troubled” by the setbacks in democracy that have occurred in the past year and reaffirmed the “pivotal role” that democracy plays in development – a message that he noted should be heard at the upcoming Millennium Development Goals summit, and the world over.

But Democracy Day wouldn’t be complete without hearing what the people themselves thought about democracy. To that end, the UN sponsored photo and video competitions in which participants had to answer the question “Democracy is…”. Winners of the video competition can be found here, while winners of the photo competition can be found here. Both my favorite photo and video out of the winners came from Iran  -  a place that has known its own violent struggle for democracy in the past year.Kevin Baghdadchi’s photo, below, comes with the caption, “Democracy is the state of being free to act and look different from the way others do,” although its his picture itself that speaks a thousand words.

Kevin Baghdadchi's Winning Photo "Democracy is being different from others"

Farbod Koshtinat’s video, below, answers the competition’s question saying “Democracy is what my brothers and sisters requested and you shed their blood for it. But still, we will fight on, we haven’t given up on our dream.”

So what does this blog, Developing Democracies, say that democracy is? Here’s a crack at it: Democracy is a system of government created by the people, for the people, and controlled by the people – making it an end in itself and the best means to protect human rights and promote responsible development. An answer inspired by Ban Ki-Moon’s video? Nothing wrong with that. Happy Democracy Day – alternative definitions welcome in comments!

Guineans queue to vote in the first free elections in 52 years. Photo credit SFCG

Sunday, June 27th, was a landmark day in the history of Guinea – when Guineans went to the polls in the country’s first free elections in more than half a century. After three consecutive authoritarian regimes, the elections followed a pledge by the current junta leader, General Sekouba Konate, to return the country to civilian rule, vowing that neither he nor any of his administration would run for election.

International observers praised the run up to the elections and polling as free and fair and noted only minor irregularities. Voters queued for up to three miles in some places for a total of 77% voter participation. Yokubu Gowon, a former Nigerian Head of State and leader of the observation mission of the Carter Center described the voting as “peaceful” and “orderly” and noted the sense of excitement. As promised, Konate’s military watched the election from the sideline and African Union President Jean Ping noted the “neutrality” and “republican discipline” of the army throughout.

After the results of the first round were announced,  several of the 24 presidential candidates called foul on vote counting in some districts. As it stands, Cellou Dalein Diallo, who garnered 39.72% of the vote, and veteran opposition leader Alpha Conde, who received 20.67% of the vote will compete in a runoff election that is expected later this month – the exact date of which is on hold as the Supreme Court reviews the election complaints. But despite these hiccups in vote counting, the Guinean people and international observers remain positive about the elections. Even presidential candidate Sidya Toure, who narrowly missed a place in the runoff election and lodged the primary complaint, agreed that the elections were much better than previous ones. Toure noted that each party had time to express themselves in national newspapers and on television and said that he would accept the Supreme Court’s decision, whatever it may be.

These elections are remarkable not only because they are ending 52 years of authoritarian rule, but also because they came just ten months after a horrific massacre of pro democracy protesters. In the wake of this tragedy the prospect of democracy seemed as bleak as ever, yet three weeks ago elections were delivered. With the majority of countries in Sub Saharan Africa still struggling to become full democracies, it  is important to take stock of how Guinea achieved this rare success and and to recognize the sacrifices of those Guineans that made it possible.

Colonialism, Socialism, and Military Misrule

The area of Guinea was under French colonial rule in the mid 1800s until the fall of the Fourth French Republic in 1958, when Guinea was given a vote to be independent or to remain a semi autonomous member of the French community. On September 28, 1958, the people of Guinea voted overwhelmingly for complete independence and the modern state of Guinea was formed. With Guineans eager to be free from their colonial rulers, and the French spurned by Guinea’s vote for immediate independence, the relationship between the two deteriorated. The acting French government and colonizers quickly left, taking with them vital capital and infrastructure. The end result of which was a free Guinean state with little resources or experience to draw upon for political and economic development.

Soon after, Guinea’s first President Ahmed Sekou Toure developed close ties with the Soviet Union and drawing upon their ideology and resources made Guinea a one party socialist state. Toure was elected as a popular leader who fought for Guinea’s independence and is still recognized by some for his role as a leader of the Pan-Africanist movement against colonial powers. But once in office Toure became increasingly authoritarian. He would rule the country for the next 26 years until his death in 1984 – a period marked by a failed planned economy, political suppression, and human rights abuses, with tens of thousands of people disappeared, tortured and executed.

Under the constitution the prime minister became acting President, but one month after Toure’s death, Captain Lansana Conte took control of the government in a military coup, suspending the constitution and parliament and banning political activity. Like Toure, Conte ruled with violence and oppression but gained some favor in the West by abolishing Toure’s socialist experiment, adopting IMF reforms, and eventually allowing multiparty elections in 1993. But these reforms were largely undermined by violence, corruption, and economic mismanagement, leaving the people of Guinea as poor as they had been during Toure’s rule, and no more free, as Conte won elections in 1993, 1998, and 2003 under heavy criticism from the opposition and election observers. Conte’s rule was punctuated by coup attempts, food riots, and political protests all of which he suppressed with violence. In 2006, under Conte’s rule, Guinea tied Haiti as the most corrupt country in the world according to Transparency International.

After 24 years in power, Conte died in 1998 leaving a power vacuum like the one he filled after Toure’s death. But while it took one month for Conte to mount a coup, a mere six hours after his death Captain Moussa Dadis Camara, representing the National Council for Democracy and Development (CNDD in French), took control of the government announcing that “the government and institutions of the Republic have been dissolved,” and just like Conte before him, suspended the constitution and political activity. Days later, Camara appointed himself as the military President of Guinea, with the CNDD in charge of a two year transition period back to civilian rule.

According to Camara, the coup was necessary because of Guinea’s “deep despair”, and because the existing institutions were “incapable of resolving the crises which have been confronting the country.” Camara was undoubtedly partially correct – following 50 years of authoritarian rule and a rating as the most corrupt country in the world two years before, the existing political institutions did need to be changed. But Camara’s rhetoric was no different than Conte’s or Toure’s before him and like their autocratic regimes, Camara’s turned into a political, economic, and human rights tragedy.

Darkest Before Light

On September 28, 2009, over ten thousand opposition protesters gathered in the “Stade 28 Septembre,” named for the historic day in 1958 that Guinea voted for independence. The demonstrators were protesting against Camara’s intentions to run in the upcoming presidential election, which he previously pledged he would not participate in. With political activity still banned, the military attacked the peaceful demonstration. Allegedly led by the elite Presidential Guard, under the command of Abubakar “Toumba” Diakite, the soldiers fired tear gas and opened fire at point blank range at the protesters. With exits cut off and thousands of protestors frantically trying to escape, many were trampled. The violence continued as soldiers were seen beating and executing protesters and publicly raping and sexually assaulting women. A Human Rights Watch investigation concluded that the attacks were premeditated and designed to humiliate, dishearten, and crush opposition to the regime. Their press release on these findings, including heartbreaking interviews of victims, can be found here. In total, a United Nations investigation found that thousands were wounded, over 100 women and girls were subjected to rape, sexual mutilation or kidnap for repeated rape, and at least 150 to 200 people were killed.

The country quickly descended into chaos. The government was accused of covering up the full extent of the massacre as many people could not find bodies of family members. Camara attempted to distance himself from the attacks and shift blame to the military and protesters saying that not even he had control over some parts of the military and that the demonstration “had the character of wanting to overthrow a chief of state.”

Two months later, as a United Nations investigation was putting pressure on the military government for the attacks, Camara was shot in the head by Toumba Diakite, the Presidential Guard leader present at the massacre, allegedly because he feared Camara would place all the blame on him. Camara survived the assassination attempt, but was flown to Morocco for treatment while Diakite’s location has been unknown since. Camara has yet to return to Guinea as a peace deal placed Camara’s deputy, Sekouba Konate, in control of the junta government with Camara convalescing in Burkina Faso.

Elections Delivered

History was set to repeat itself again – another Guinean military leader overthrown, free elections elusive, and the military in control. But three weeks ago Konate broke the cycle of authoritarianism and delivered Guinea’s first free elections in over 50 years. Before the election, Konate said that the country was “standing before the judgment of history,” and addressed the candidates saying, “starting from now, it’s up to you to make it happen.” The choice, he added, was between “peace, freedom and democracy, or chaos and instability.” Having suffered chaos and instability at the hands of autocrats for half a century, Guineans chose democracy. And although there will surely be some bumps in the road ahead, the road itself is one that should prevent human rights abuses like the September 28th massacre from ever happening again.

Credit certainly needs to be given to Konate for leading Guinea towards this historic election while keeping the military out of the contest. It shows the influence that one individual can have for democratic change. As he voted, Konate said he was “animated by a sense of pride” having kept his promise to deliver Guinea’s first democratic elections. Konate certainly deserves to be proud and has surely earned himself an esteemed place in the history of Guinea.

These elections also demonstrate the power that international institutions can have to promote human rights and democracy. Pressure from the African Union, United Nations, foreign governments, and NGOs like Human Rights Watch, helped make the massacre of September 28th a turning point for Guinea rather than a precedent for continued tragedies at the hands of the junta government. The International Criminal Court has concluded that the September 28th abuses by the military constitute “crimes against humanity” which allows them to prosecute in the event that the justice system in Guinea cannot investigate the crimes on its own, a question that is still under discussion.

But ultimately this is a victory won by the people of Guinea whose unrelenting demands for democracy and a better way of life have overcome 52 years of authoritarian rule. It was the commitment of ten thousand protestors on September 28th and countless sacrifices stretching back to the same day in 1958 when Guinea voted for independence that made the elections on June 27th a reality. The elections are the first step in vindicating those sacrifices. The next steps are successfully completing a free and fair runoff election and transitioning to a fully democratic government that respects human rights, promotes rule of law, and raises living standards across the country. But for now, the people of Guinea have reason to celebrate.

Mo Ibrahim

Earlier this week, the Mo Ibrahim Foundation announced the winner of this year’s Mo Ibrahim Prize for Excellence in African Leadership. The prize consists of a payment of $5 million over 10 years with $200,000 annually for life thereafter.  The prize is awarded for exemplary leadership by an African Head of State that was democratically elected, served his or her term within the limits of the country’s constitution, and left office within the past three years. Ibrahim, a Sudanese-born British telecommunications billionaire, created the prize in 2007 to promote improved governance in sub-Saharan Africa. The prize examines every eligible candidate’s exercise of leadership and the performance of their country in the areas of sustainable economic development, health and education, transparency (including  the fight against corruption and the empowerment of civil society), democracy, human rights, rule of law, and security.

It is the largest individual prize in the world, surpassing the $1.3 million Nobel Prize, and is designed with the intention of keeping African leadership in Africa. The Ibrahim prize lowers the cost of being out of power which, in poverty-stricken countries with weak rule of law, is unbelievably high compared with being in office. In resource rich African countries this disparity is even greater. The Ibrahim prize provides an incentive for a country’s chief executive not only to exercise the highest quality of leadership themselves, but seek out corruption and improve governance throughout the country.

Drum roll, please. Without further ado, the 2010 winner of the Mo Ibrahim Prize for Excellence in African Leadership is … no one.

For the second year in a row the seven person prize committee, chaired by former UN Secretary General Kofi Annon, chose not to award the prize. Last year the independent committee said they considered some credible candidates but after an in-depth review could not select a winner. This year, the committee said that there were “no new candidates and no new developments,” leaving the prize, once again, unawarded.

Responding to the committee’s decision, Ibrahim said in a press release, “Whether there is a winner or not, the purpose of the Foundation is to challenge those in Africa and across the world to debate what constitutes excellence in leadership.” By setting the bar high, the Mo Ibrahim Foundation is sending a very clear challenge to African leaders - that the largest individual prize in the world is only awarded for exceptional governance. The two previous winners of the prize are  Joaquim Chissano, former President of Mozambique in 2007 and Festus Mogae, former President of Botswana in 2008. Nelson Mandela was named an Honorary Laureate in 2007.

In light of the fact that no one was awarded the prize for two years in a row, the Ibrahim Foundation is launching a fellowship program designed to identify and support the next generation of African leaders through mentoring opportunities in multilateral institutions. Ibrahim commented on the new initiative saying, “The task of promoting good African leadership is more important than ever. Good governance crucial if African people are to share in the strong economic growth that many are predicting for Africa. There are many ways to support great leadership. The prize is one such way, the fellowships will be another.”

In Other Non-Awarded-African-Monetary-Prize News

President Obiang of Equatorial Guinea

Irina Bokova, the director general of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO),  announced yesterday that the UNESCO-Obiang Prize for Research in the Life Sciences, awarded to promote scientific research that improves human life, would be suspended until the UNESCO Executive board takes up the issue again in October. Like the Mo Ibrahim prize, the UNESCO-Obiang prize was not awarded due to poor governance – not by the candidates this time, but by the prize’s namesake, President Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo of Equatorial Guinea, one of Africa’s most infamous dictators. The prize was created in 2008 through funding provided by Obiang, who has committed $3 million a year for five years – half the money to go to five recipients who would receive $300,000 grants each, and half to cover the cost of their selection (even the money distribution sounds a bit funny, doesn’t it?).

The prize – and UNESCO – have been highly criticized by human rights activists, scientists, the U.S. Ambassador to UNESCO, David Killion, and distinguished Africans such as Archbishop Desmond Tutu, for honoring a dictator that came to  power in a bloody coup d’etat in 1979 and is widely accused of corruption and personally profiting from Equatorial Guinea’s oil wealth. Journalist Peter Maass has argued that Obiang is the worst dictator in Africa, surpassing even Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe. “The only place I felt a similar pattern of fear,” wrote Maass in 2008 about his stay in Equatorial Guinea, “was North Korea.”

This begs the question – why would UNESCO agree to establish the prize in the first place? Perhaps UNESCO decided that even though Obiang had an abysmal human rights record, better to use the money for good than not at all.  But with “global visions of sustainable development encompassing observance of human rights, mutual respect and the alleviation of poverty … at the heart of UNESCO’s mission,” as stated on their website, it’s difficult to see how establishing this prize is in line with their work.

This “conflict of interest”, to put it lightly, is perhaps best described by Tutu Alicante, director of EG Justice, an NGO dedicated to human rights and rule of law in Equatorial Guinea, who writes:

“Among its avowed priorities, UNESCO lists gender equality, universal education, sustainable development, and ethics. My nieces and nephews in Equatorial Guinea still go to school on an empty stomach. They return home by mid-day to help supplement the household income by selling doughnuts in the streets – at a time when they are supposed to be completing homework. Surviving on less than a dollar a day, as most of my countrymen do, means living without running water, sanitation, or electricity. … As far as the people of Equatorial Guinea are concerned, by offering this prize, UNESCO lends credibility to Obiang and his regime, and becomes complicit in its abuses.”

Suspending the prize for now is a step in the right direction, but the UNESCO Executive board needs to reaffirm this decision in October and cancel or rename the prize. Now taking applications from generous donors to keep the prize in existence but with a new name and endowment.

Both UNESCO and Obiang should take a lesson from the Mo Ibrahim Foundation. UNESCO should learn that sometimes a prize not awarded is better than one that honors the wrong person. If the prize is canceled, as it should be, Obiang should follow Ibrahim’s example – that is, if giving your money away as a prize  does not work out, reinvest it in the people. If Obiang is looking to redeem himself, Equatorial Guinea is the place to start, not UNESCO.

But that image is very different from what life looks like inside North Korea. The New York Times recently provided a rare glimpse into daily life in the country through interviews of eight North Koreans residing in China. The full article is here and is worth a read. Their stories paint a picture of desperation in what is considered the last Stalinist state in the world.

As a Socialist country, everyone in North Korea (except for the minors, the elderly, and mothers with young children) works for the state. But with state enterprises floundering – based on aerial photos of plumeless smokestacks, economists estimate that only a quarter of North Korean factories are operating – many people eek out a living by trading in North Korea’s vast underground economy. One New York Times interviewee said that his state employer had not paid him in so long that he forgot his salary. In fact, he pays his boss $5 a month to be listed as a dummy worker so that he and his wife can sell small bags of detergent on the black market. “If you don’t trade, you die,” said another interviewee.

Because of the failing state enterprises and the growth of the informal economy, the cash strapped North Korean government drastically devalued the North Korean currency last November. The move was supposed to shut down the black market and send people back to work in state enterprises. The reality was that it wiped out the savings of those already in crushing poverty. One interviewee said that he denied his teenage daughter a $15 track suit that she wanted so that they could put food on the table, only to see his family’s life savings of $1,560 reduced to $30 overnight. “I cannot describe how terrible I feel that I didn’t buy that for her,” he said. “At that moment, I really wanted to kill myself.”

The reeling economy is only set to get worse as South Korea has suspended all trade with their Northern neighbor after the sinking of the Cheonan. But it’s difficult for average North Koreans to get a sense of perspective on the ongoing Cheonan incident or on their own economic and political tribulations. There is no internet and televisions and radios are soldered to government channels. Despite their heartbreaking stories, two of those interviewed by the New York Times stuck to official propaganda that North Korean poverty was a Western plot devised by die hard enemies. Others remain skeptical. Information will continue to seep in slowly, however, and that can only spell bad news for the North Korean government in the long run.

And that is where the unlikely North Korean striker might come in. Despite the fact that he is not your typical North Korean, perhaps Jong Tae-Se and the rest of North Korea’s World Cup Team will give some of these people hope. Perhaps North Koreans will see in their flashy star a glimpse of how things could be different and take a step toward demanding change. That is, of course, if the North Korean government decides to air the games.

Last week’s jirga was not an official law making jirga, but it did bring together 1,600 participants from all ethnic groups in Afghanistan to discuss strategies for peace (hence, “National Consultative Peace Jirga”). Hosted in Kabul, the jirga broke into 28 focus groups, each with the same set of topics to discuss: 1) whether Afghanistan should negotiate with the Taliban; 2) what the framework and mechanisms for negotiation with the opposition should be; and 3) how to strengthen national unity. At the end of the conference, recommendations from the 28 committees were compiled into a final declaration, an unofficial translation of which has been posted by Afghan blogger Abdulhadi Hairan.

From the consensus document one thing is clear – the Afghan people want peace. The document includes recommendations to create an independent commission for peace with branches in each province,  urges the government to  release prisoners that are being held without trial, asks Afghan and international forces to stop unnecessary house raids, arrests, and civilian casualties, and calls for the complete support of all sides to come to reach a sustainable peace.  But, notably, it also declares that the gains in democracy and women’s rights should not be sacrificed for this peace.

Despite these admirable recommendations, however, the jirga has received a significant amount of criticism. Reports emerged saying that the conference attendees were mostly handpicked and largely excluded political rivals. Moreover, despite the main goal of reaching a consensus on how to negotiate with and reintegrate insurgents, none of the major insurgent groups (the Taliban, the Haqqani network, or Hezb-i-Islami Gulbuddin) were in attendance.  The Taliban dismissed the jirga as a publicity stunt, rejected their invitation, and fired rockets at the tent instead (which fortunately missed). While Karzai cannot be blamed for the Taliban’s unwillingness to participate in small group discussions, critics in Afghanistan and around the world have also worried that the event was merely a show for Karzai to curry favor with the international community.

Adding to the negative publicity of the event, Interior Minister Hanif Atmar and Head of the National Directorate of Security Amrullah Saleh resigned over the weekend following the conference. The reasons for this remain murky, but Saleh commented that the Taliban attack on the jirga was a “tipping point.”

But despite the criticism, the sheer fact that the jirga was Afghan financed, Afghan organized, and Afghan led makes it a positive step.  It’s democracy the Afghan way. While the allegations that political rivals were excluded should be taken seriously, even Karzai’s alleged political machinations cannot fully detract from the participation of 1,600 Afghan citizens who provided serious criticisms of the Afghan government and NATO forces along with strategies for peace. Through the national jirga, Afghan citizens were given a voice in the peace process, empowering them to be owners of reconciliation and reintegration efforts, rather than 0nlookers.

And it is perhaps this participation itself, rather than any set of recommendations or criticisms, that will be the most important result of the jirga. Included in the final declaration was a pledge by the participants to return to their provinces with the jirga’s resolutions for peace. As Abdulhadi’s translation reads:

“We, participants of the National Consultative Peace Jirga, promise that we will return to our home provinces with the message of peace from the jirga. We will take it as our national and religious responsibility to spread this message in cooperation with the local institutes, the ulema, the tribal elders, youth, and women.”

What better way for the message of peace, democracy, and equality to be spread than by the Afghan citizens themselves?

According to Freedom House’s 2010 Freedom in the World Report, which rates countries as Free, Partly Free, or Not Free, freedom in the world declined in 2009 for the fourth consecutive year – the longest continuous period of decline in the 37 year history of the report. According to the report, in 2009 20% of the world’s population lived in countries that were partly free and 34% of the world’s population lived in countries that were not free. In other words, 54% of the world’s population lives in societies that are not fully free.

This is a crisis not only for those people living in these countries – whose fundamental rights are infringed upon, are made increasingly vulnerable to violence, famine, and other natural disasters, are the victims of corruption, and poor economic development – but also for the rest of the world. Authoritarian regimes or countries without strong rule of law have proven to be havens for terrorist activities while democracies have a famous history of not fighting one another.

The map below compares Freedom House’s “de facto” ratings of freedom with de jure systems of government and highlights developing countries (defined in this case as having a score of .7 or lower on the UN Human Development Index).

This map illustrates a few important trends. First, it’s easy to see that the number of failing democracies (blue with red dots) is much greater than the number de jure authoritarian states (all red). In other words, there are only a handful of countries that are de jure authoritarian states – the far bigger (and more alarming) problem in terms of freedom in the world is the number of de jure democracies that are not completely free. These are countries whose citizens have fought for and adopted a democratic model of government but that model is failing at the hands of corrupt autocrats and patronage politics.

A second major trend is that the majority of these failing democracies are also developing countries – most of which are located in Sub-Saharan Africa with  the rest located mainly in Central America and Central/Southeast Asia. While scholars have debated at length the exact relationship between development and democracy  – whether development is a prerequisite for democracy to work or if democracy is essential to any long term development plan – it is clear that developing countries face unique and difficult challenges in the democratization process.

These trends are the central issues that this blog will explore – why democracy is struggling throughout the world and particularly in developing countries and what can be done about it. Despite the fact that over half of the world currently lives in states that are not fully free, the good news is that there are more tools than ever before to increase transparency, accountability, and make citizens’ voices heard. This blog seeks to add to those voices and will be an active searcher for what works – examining the issues, news, and success stories in the development of democracies in order to share the information with others committed to promoting democracy around the world.