Burundi: the good coup that failed

…’very few have retired from office, most have ended their rule with surprised looks on their faces’
Observation by a democracy activist in the Balkans.
For wonks who study the tortured politics of our continent, the past two months has been devoted to watching unfolding developments in Burundi. Some three weeks ago with the country’s leader Pierre Nkurunziza attending a crisis summit next door in Dar es Salaam, a group of military personnel led by the former head of intelligence announced his ouster from office. The president’s chargesheet listed a solitary count; attempting to elongate his stay in power beyond prescribed term limits. As the democracy activist quoted above had wryly observed about leaders who behave that way, President Nkurunziza’s rule seemed to be ending with a surprised look on his face. But to borrow a boxing parlance he was saved by the bell, and a coup which would have been one of the few good ones ever mounted was foiled by loyalists. Ever since the global third wave of democratisation made landfall on the continent at the end of the Cold War, the African polity has had to contend with strong men who seek to tamper with national constitutions to facilitate their own self succession in office. The failed coup is yet another episode in this struggle between democrats and pseudo democrats on our continent. In Southern Africa, we all recall how a darling of the labour movement and an advocate of multi party democracy, Frederick Chiluba was brought to power in 1991 on a change platform when Zambians decided to toss out the UNIP government which had been in power for 27 years. Ten years later when it was time for him to observe the two term limit enshrined in the republican charter the president and his acolytes resorted to all manner of subterfuge and chicanery to allow him a third stint. The story of his desire to reverse the gains of the preceding years is well documented by researchers, However due to spirited resistance by a coalition of civil society organisations and other pro democracy movements his bid failed when the Zambian parliament rejected the proposed amendment. With everyone thinking the outcome of President Chiluba’s folly had sent a clear message that term limits were sacrosanct, a similar debate erupted in Malawi as the country prepared for the 2004 general elections at which the sitting president would be required to stand down in observance of the term limit rule. In an uncanny parallel of what had transpired in Zambia, President Bakili Muluzi and his fellow travellers swung into action and a protracted struggle ensued between them and the pro democracy coalition on the other hand. The forces of good ultimately won the day but not before Malawi experienced some turmoil and instability. In both instances presidents who had come into office on promises of fidelity to democratic values and good governance, including respect for term limits discovered that when the time came to go, power was so sweet they wanted a third bite at the cherry. Indeed President Chiluba was even quoted saying, ‘ oh power is so sweet’. Scholars have advanced motivations for the tendency of term extensions bedevilling our continent. These include fear of prosecution for crimes committed in office either by the incumbent or the acolytes making up his court. There are also cases of simple human gluttony where the incumbent has captured the state for purposes of ‘eating’ and when their time is up they feel they haven’t ‘eaten’ their fill; or they have ‘eaten’ so much they may have to account. In the case of President Muluzi, his supporters ventured the curious notion that he hadn’t completed his development projects and hence must be allowed more time to wrap up. Before President Obasanjo was tempted by the honey scent of his own self succession, which attempt was also foiled in 2006 by a pro democracy coalition he narrated the story of an African president friend of his who told him he wanted to abolish term limits and stay in power until poverty was completely eradicated in his homeland. President Obasanjo’s parting shot to his friend was that poverty will be there until his children’s children and their children were grown up. Now in the case of Burundi what we are witnessing is a legalistic construct that says President Nkurunziza has indeed completed two terms but under different electoral systems. His maiden tenure was via parliamentary vote and the second by direct election, which to his supporters means the first term does not count and he must be permitted to run for a third term under the same system that ushered him into a second term. Hogwash, the bottom line is he has done two terms. And that is the feeling of many Burundians who notwithstanding a cowed court’s affirmation of the strange interpretation, took to the streets in protest. To the average protester whatever argument is made, a two term limit of five years each means strictly ten years in office irrespective of whether it was attained through parliamentary or direct vote. Regrettably in their protests against one man rule, scores of ordinary citizens of Burundi are being shot and killed by those that are supposed to be their protectors The bottom line is in the four cases cited, of Zambia, Malawi, Nigeria and Burundi, attempts at constitution tampering are meant for the benefit of one individual and their entourage, as opposed to promoting the interests of the nation. Apologists of self succession say if the method of amending the constitution conforms to democratic procedure such as a referendum or an act of parliament then what is all the fuss about because those aggrieved still have an opportunity at the polls not to vote for the incumbent. In fact their argument goes, in a democracy if the majority vote to abolish term limits is it not democracy? This kind of argument subsists in backwaters where, to corrupt the words of President Obama, strong men hold sway over weak institutions. Where strong institutions of democracy exist, good governance and the rule of law are tangible dividends and this means no incumbent can steal, hence no one has any fear of departing office. Neither will the country collapse when the incumbent retires because those institutions stand in strong foundation. A further case for maintaining term limits is that countries benefit from leadership renewal when different individuals rotate in power. Perhaps alive to these considerations, in the notable cases of Zambia, Malawi and Nigeria, machinations in favour of self succession have been checkmated. Currently it’s stalemate in Burundi but fresh protests have erupted in the wake of the failed coup and as we speak wise voices continue to advise an embattled President Nkurunziza not to let his ambition get the better of him. To borrow from the classics, not only is his an uneasy head wearing the crown but the crown he so covets is giving him sleepless nights. The fundamental question posed by this feature is can there be a case for a good coup even if its ostensible basis is to protect democratic values and good governance? Even in a neighbourhood blighted by its history of self serving coups that had nothing to do with democracy, does the end still justify the means? These are questions without formulaic answers. But what was clear from immediate reaction to news that in fact the Burundi coup had aborted was the disappointment on social media expressed by pro democracy voices across the continent. Decoded, this means Africans recognise the imperative of term limits. The irony that before it fizzled out many celebrated a good coup which we believed would stop President Nkurunziza’s third term bid can only mean that in their hunger for democracy, rule of law and good governance, some Africans embraced the coup because they saw its leaders as guarantors of constitutional order against selfish personal interests.