The Lumumba Of This Generation

The United Nations secretary general Mr Ban Ki-moon is a strange type of democrat. Speaking to the press at Addis Ababa outside the meeting of the African Union he spoke thus: ‘I am concerned that differences of opinion are now surfacing among the African Union. This is not desirable at this time in preserving the integrity and fundamental principle of democracy’. His notion of democracy does not value ‘differences of opinion’.

It stands at variance to Mwalimu Nyerere’s view of the workings of communal democracy of Africa in which members of a community ‘talk and talk and talk until we agree or agree to disagree’. That Ban Ki-moon has not imbibed this fundamental law of African democracy is not surprising since he is from Korea, with deeply ingrained memories of brutal dictatorship against his people by Japanese colonial rulers when Japan conquered and occupied his country. As a top official of the United Nations, however, he has no excuse not to acquaint himself with a core cultural value in African civilisation.

Ban Ki-moon has shown a rare haste to see Alassane Ouattara in power and Laurent Gbagbo out. He has been party to a gang known as the ‘international community’ to oust the constitutional order in Cote d’Ivoire in rude deviation from the principle of the ‘rule of law’. The constitutional order spelt out steps that were not challenged before the election was conducted to the effect that the Electoral Commission conducts an election but the ultimate authority to affirm final and legitimate results is the Council of State.

That Ivorian formula held a precaution against the possibility of election malpractices being the determinant of election results. In his haste to support Ouattara, Ban Ki-moon has sided with the high possibility of election results contaminated by malpractices. That a UN secretary general finds himself in this position indicates that his unwholesome position is not a measure for defending a ‘fundamental principle of democracy’, but rather a matter of real politicks to please powerful groups behind the UN Security Council.

Africa is deeply indebted to the heroes of the freedom revolution in Tunisia and Egypt. They took the winds or nuclear fuel off the sails or engine of Ban Ki-moon’s invasion of the electoral politics of Cote d’Ivoire by taking television cameras and salivating propagandists to the streets of Tunisian and Egyptian cities. What the threat of nuclear war between his native brothers in North Korea and South Korea could not achieve in pulling Ban Ki-moon to that region as a fire brigade chief, the angry youths of Tunisia and Egypt did with an enchanting if tragic drama in the deaths of those murdered by police and military guns.

Under the glow of those political fire storms, the African Union could meet in Addis Ababa and bluntly rebuke the French President Sarkozy and Ki-moon by telling them that Cote d’Ivoire is and African problem. Ban Ki-moon should not have been too hasty to teach Africa’s leaders the call for democracy in Cote d’ Ivoire.Ban Ki-moon is a puzzle to African observers. He heads an organisation that was created ‘to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war which twice in out generation brought untold sorrow to mankind’. West Africa has suffered ‘ untold sorrow’ in Liberia and Sierra Leone in the last two decades. Somalia is in the grip of ‘ untold sorrow’. Over 1.5 million people in Northern Uganda lived in filthy poverty-stricken camps to be ‘ protected’ by their government from forced recruitment and death by LRA militias.

For twenty years over 40,000 children in these camps trekked daily to sleep on cold pavements in urban centres to escape from being captured by LRA’s marauders’. Over 2 million peoples of Southern Sudan died from war, not to mention victims of Darfur. If Ban Ki-Moon finds that difficult to integrate into the historic mandate of the United Nations Organization, he should not expect African leaders to suffer from such racist amnesia. He should urgently abandon the hope of weeping crocodile tears over rivers of blood in Cote d’Ivoire in the name of a doubtful authenticity of an electoral ‘democracy’ in that country.

The freedom revolution currently ablaze in Tunisia and Egypt is anchored in the rejection of policies imposed on friends of the ‘ international community’ countries that Ban Ki-moon listens to. Those policies blocked internal industrialisation and industrial expansion – including moving into the realm of use of information technology for industrial productivity.

It blocked the creation of jobs. The pains and humiliations of perpetual unemployment is the fuel that has exploded the revolts in Tunisia and Egypt. Because China stood independent of this Euro-American tyranny of unemployment, poverty, and wrath, the streets of China have been saved from the spectre of hundreds of millions protesting and burning down buildings. Due to a strange historic deafness, Ban Ki-moon wants to put in power Alassane Ouattara as a puppet that will take Cote d’Ivoire down that same route to destruction.

Ban Ki-moon also seems to be anxious to outdo one of his predecessors – Dag Hammarskjöld. That UN secretary general holds the notorious record of virulently hating and participating in the murder of Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba. Lumumba had wanted Belgian troops driven out of his newly independent country.

He wanted the secession of Katanga province from Congo ended quickly before racist white mercenaries from South Africa, Southern and Northern Rhodesia and Belgium, France, and Britain helped it to become a fully separate country. He was ordered to assassinate Lumumba by President Dwight Eisenhower of the United States and by top officials of Belgium, Britain and France. Voices of African leaders, like Kwame Nkrumah and Gamal Nasser, who wished to advise Lumumba and build negotiations and dialogue between Congo’s politicians, were ignored contemptuously. Africa must this time help Ki-moon to climb to a higher and historical legacy; one not soaked in African blood from Cote d’Ivoire and West Africa.

The freedom revolution in Tunisia and Egypt deserves a more glorifying form of honour by Ban Ki-moon. The African Union, however, needs to find a herbal cure for that obnoxious ideology of ‘ ivorite’ (or only people whose parents are also born of ethnic groups from southern part of the country can hold leadership posts), that has poisoned politics in that country. The African has creative example to borrow from. One of them is Nigeria’s ‘ federal character principle’ and Kagame’s civic education for youths against ‘ genocide ideology’.

They handed Lumumba to Mobutu (1961). Now they have handed Gbagbo to Outtara(2011). 50 years of African Neo-Colonialism -Aluta Continua



Advertisements

5 thoughts on “The Lumumba Of This Generation

  1. You have soiled your otherwise very good article by trying to show xxxxx in good light. xxxxxalways called for Gbagbo to be ousted by force and he could only have been using his usual double speak if he said and what you have implied he said and meant. The truth is Raila is a close friend of Ouatara and would love whoever may declare to win 2012 presidential election over him to be ousted like Gbagbo and handed to him – AND, GOD FORBID, WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN IVORY COAST COULD EASILY BE REPEATED IN KENYA NEXT YEAR. This is a very bad presedent for Africa – ABSOLUTELY WRONG. Can and will African Union do anything??

    [sorry for the mix up i have sorted the problem]Editor

  2. you have the sickest and most stupid views!!! and yes i am a Kikuyu and i tell you right in your face that your routing for Uhuru is stupid and foolish and will never see light of day!!!

  3. Gbagbo is no Lumumba and doesnt deserve your energy in defending. If he lost the election he should just accept it with good grace go back to the drawing board and come up with better policies. The African Union is an embarrassment that has helped to condemn Africa to its current situation. WHat good have Gbagbo type strongmen brought to Africa? Its part of our old style mentality where we leave the thinking to the big man in the centre because he is all knowing in all manner of subjects and no one else should think while the big man at the centre is alive. The truth is knowledge is spread out amongst the entire population and great things emerge from a population given the ability to fulfil its potential rather than held back and trodden upon by the Gbagbo’s of this world. Thus with the knowledege that he supposedly lost the election then the events of recent days fill me with joy and is a marker laid down for other bigmen to see that mentality will be over in Africa. Let the African be free.

  4. @Tony History will determine if Gbagbo and Lumumba are alike but they do share a common ideology and were both vilified.In 1961 the world press and even the people of Congo could not see the brilliance and selflessness of Lumumba and the same goes for Gbagbo.Only the true students of History can see the starling similarities .On the elections I like the fact that you used the word [IF] because nobody really knows because the International community has refused a vote re-count(sic).As to what has Gbagbo done for Africa- He has given millions of young Africans a sense of self esteem and pride.-Just like Lumumba.He has exposed the fact that the freedom struggle for Africa is still not over.-Just like Lumumba On what he actually did- Just like Lumumba what could he have done with all the opposition bought and paid for by world powers, an armed rebellion and an international community against him and blind Africans sining and vilifying him!! Gbagbo may not have done alot in his short but troubled reign but Just like Lumumba,Sankara,Onlympio he has upheld the Idea of a free Africa

    In the words of Thomas Sankara “You can vilify and kill the personality but you can not kill the idea”

    Gbagbo is a true African Hero for those who don’t just romanticize Lumumba and Sankara but actually believe in their ideology

  5. I think the legacy of Lumumba is revered and hence roads and buildings named after him. I doubt this will happen for Gbagbo. I really don’t think the Gbagbo episode is one for Africa to be proud of, in fact the whole episode has left Africa shamed. The election in Ghana is one as Africans we should look at and be proud or even the 2003 election in Kenya which was a source of enormous pride. Gbagbo chose a path that led to death of his people and gave the international community the opportunity to interfere/help. That is not a source of pride for Africa, the two elections Ive mentioned before may be worthy of such praise. The best thing that could have happened in Ivory Coast was an open fair election a winner declared if it is disputed then a fair and open court to rule etc. Sadly with poor institutions and African big man mentality the situation developed as it did.

    In conclusion Gbagbo type leaders bring nothing but shame to Africa. I am yet to see an African leader we can be proud of as my threshold is very high. When we get a leader who leaves his country in a better position socially & economically than when he started then I shall respect him/her. Looking through the history of Africa no single leader has managed to achieve this, each one has destroyed their nation a little bit more. Maybe Botswana, Seychelles & Mauritius come close though I see problems there too.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s