On the smokescreen of the Declaration of Algiers
The Declaration of Algiers: historic step forward or ruse?
(c) Brian Farenell
11 September 1999
Last month, the annual summit of the heads of state of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) was held in Algiers, the Algerian capital. The leaders adopted the Declaration of Algiers which `banned' coups d'état and congratulated themselves on this supposedly revolutionnary decision. Any future putschist would not be allowed to participate at the OAU until such time as constitutional order was restored. This declaration is allegedly a historical tourning point after four decades during which the non-interference in the internal affairs of member countries was the most sacred principle of the OAU. Who could possibly be opposed to this declaration which tries to stamp out political violence, forces and attacks against democracy? Except for the fact that the declaration is insufficient. And that insufficience, far from being merely benign, is perhaps a greater menace to constitutional order on the continent than doing anything.
The Declaration of Algiers implies that the overthrow of the governement is the only danger, the sole source of the ills which eat at Africa. This is not the case. The other threat to democracy is those leaders who use their authority to harrass opponents. These leaders call themselves defenders of the constitution but it's they who abuse it and therefore harm the proper functioning of constitutional order. The Declaration of Algiers is insufficient because it doesn't take into account the heads of state who attack democracy by other means. Those who prevent opposition members who've dared to attempt a peaceful march or who imprison journalists for shedding light on corruption scandals or abuses of power.
These violations against national constitutions, as well as against the OAU's own charter, would not be punished by the Declaration of Algiers. Recently, the Algerian president Abdelaziz Bouteflika gave an interview to the Financial Times of London. He characterized the annulment of the 1992 elections in his country as an "act of violence." It's a first. A president recognizes that abuses of power are as much of a threat to stability and peace as are bomb attacks and assassinations. Formerly, it was always the opposition who was behind political violence (according to the governements). To listen to some African autocrats, it remains like that elsewhere.
Additionally, there is a troubling number of current presidents who came to power... by the very same type of coup d'état that will be henceforth banned (but remained unpunished at the time). They are 21 who would've been banished from the OAU if the Declaration of Algiers had been in effect since the birth of the OAU.
And let's not forget the case of Mali. Despite the popular uprisings in the early 90s, the regime of Moussa Traoré refused to submit to the democratic reforms demanded by the masses. It took a coup d'état to put an end to his bloody reign. The leader of the putsch, General Amadou Toumani Touré, remains one of the most adored and respected people not only in Mali, but in all of Africa. If ATT had waited until 1999 to overthrow the dictator, he would've found himself excluded from the OAU.
The Declaration of Algiers is good in principle but dangerous in practice. Africa has many autocrats who hide behind a façade of democracy and of constitution order. Bedié (Côte d'Ivoire), Eyadéma (Togo), Compaoré (Burkina Faso), Jammeh (Gambia) and Mugabe (Zimbabwe), to name just a few. If these dictators use the Declaration of Algiers to further entrench their perpetual power, the wishes of the true democrats amongst African leaders will not be realized. If the OAU leaders sincerely wanted an effective Declaration of Algiers, they would've made it retroactive.
Click here to return to my writings' page
Click here to return to my home page
Page updated: 11 September '99, 1000 EDT
Email: saabrian@yahoo.com
