Nigeria Content Online

It seems only a
matter of days before Laurent Gbagbo, usurper of the office of
President of Cote d’Ivoire, ceases to be president of the bunker which
he inhabits below the grounds of the Presidential Palace in Abidjan.
His has been a tragic decline: a history professor who struck a blow
for competitive and peaceful alternatives to presidential office
running against Cote d’Ivoire’s first president himself, the late
Houphouet-Boigny in 1990; then, ruler of Cote d’Ivoire throughout the
2000s; today, a presidential usurper in control of a solitary
underground bunker. The arc of his transformation from socialist
democrat to a tyrannical African ‘strong man’, sowing dissension, death
and disease in the thousands among poor Ivoriens, is an extreme example
of the cancerous lust for perpetual power to which too many rulers have
succumbed in history. We can begin to ponder the significance of his
impending departure, with the timely assistance of the former colonial
power, France, and the United Nations.

There are three
striking features about the path to Gbagbo’s defeat. The first is that
bravery of urban masses gets results, albeit at a terrible human cost.
Cote d’Ivoire has wallowed in misery and humanitarian crisis since
2000. So has Zimbabwe. Ivoriens are about to see the back of the leader
who reigned throughout that crisis. No one knows if Robert Mugabe,
another person notorious for disseminating the virus of economic
collapse and civil dissension, will ever leave office. Why the
difference in fates? One reason has to be that the Ivorien masses have
been willing to face martyrdom in challenging Mr. Gbagbo. More people
seem to have been killed in Abidjan by the army since the November 2010
elections than in Harare in a decade.

Think of the march
of mothers shot in cold blood in Abidjan a few weeks ago, for example.
I realise that many Zimbabweans have been tortured, beaten and maimed
since the emergence of the Movement for Democratic Change in Zimbabwe.
Yet, somehow, my impression is that President Mugabe has been far more
successful in cowing urban protests than any Ivorian leader, military
or civilian. He has had a far more congenial regional setting in which
to handle his opponents than Mr. Gbagbo.

Burkina Faso has
been a strong supporter of Ivoriens opposed to Mr. Gbagbo. It may be
that the presence of so many Ivorien relatives of the Burkinabe people
forced the Burkinabe government to support steadfastly Mr. Gbagbo’s
opponents. By contrast, Zimbabwe does not seem to have harboured as
many descendants of immigrants from its neighbours. Whatever the
reason, there can be no denying that, other than Botswana, no southern
African country has provided strong support for Morgan Tsvangirai and
his supporters. In turn, that absence of powerful regional support
might have cooled the willingness of urban Zimbabweans to defy openly,
at huge personal cost, Mr. Mugabe and his ruling party.

It is no easy feat
for unarmed civilians to face armed men. Thus, I cannot condemn any
person for refusing to take the risk of losing his or her life in
Zimbabwe. But, it does seem that the shedding of the blood of unarmed
people by a government or its armed supporters is much more likely to
precipitate intervention on the side of the protestors than furtive
resistance. I salute the bravery of the Ivorien people.

The second
noteworthy feature is the unanimous support for a democratic electorate
process and outcome exhibited by ECOWAS and the West African peoples.
They did not waver for one moment in rejecting the so-called African
solution of “unity governments” so beloved of Eastern and Southern
Africans, enabling losers to cohabit with victors. West Africans have
set a powerful example for other parts of Africa about the appropriate
reaction to electoral theft. Nigeria’s position, in particular, calls
for praise. If Goodluck Jonathan had waffled in his condemnation of Mr.
Gbagbo’s behaviour, it would have been much more difficult to present a
unified West African response.

The third feature is the limited power an African ruler unable to
print his own currency has in tough times. Mr. Gbagbo was denied the
weapon of a hyperinflationary tax of printing new currency because Cote
d’Ivoire uses a regional currency. Mr. Mugabe used that weapon to
deadly effect against his people. Regional currencies and regional
central banks curb the powers of national rulers. Time will tell
whether Alassane Ouattara is the statesman for which Cote d’Ivoire is
crying. Mr. Gbagbo was no statesman. Good riddance!