By Abdul Tejan-Cole
Yet another year, yet no winner for the Mo Ibrahim Prize for Achievement in African Leadership. Since the prize was established seven years ago, there have only been three winners of what should be an annual award. The first awardee in 2007 was Joaquim Chissano, the former president of Mozambique for "his role in leading Mozambique from conflict to peace and democracy." Former President of Botswana, Festus Mogae won it in 2008, the year he left office, for “exceptional leadership” that ensured Botswana’s continued stability and success in the face of an HIV/AIDS pandemic. And in 2011, Pedro Pires of Cape Verde became the first and so far only West African president to win the coveted prize for his role in transforming the country into a model of relative democracy, stability and increased prosperity. Since then the $5m prize spread over ten years plus another $200,000 each year for life, has remained unclaimed. The failure to find a winner for four of the seven years has raised issues about the state of leadership on the continent, as well as the criteria for the prize. True, Africa has come a long way since the days of Uganda’s Idi Amin (aka Butcher of Uganda), Chad’s Hissène Habré dubbed "Africa's Pinochet" and the cannibal dictator, Jean-Bédel Bokassa. Africa is now more democratic than it was 20 years ago. In comparison to the leaders then, most of the present crop is much better at respecting human rights and their constitutions, allowing free speech and regularly holding and “winning” elections. In 1991 less than 10 African countries were considered democratic. Today the number is over 30. With civil society and the media becoming more vociferous and citizens becoming more conscious, this number can only increase. According to their website, the principal goal of the Mo Ibrahim Prize for Achievement in African Leadership is to recognise and celebrate African leaders who have developed their countries, lifted people out of poverty, paved the way for sustainable and equitable prosperity. It also aims to highlight exceptional role models for the continent and ensure that Africa continues to benefit from the experience and expertise of exceptional leaders when they leave national office, by enabling them to continue in other public roles on the continent. In sum, the leader must have been democratically elected; must be a former head of state or government and not a ceremonial president; must have left office voluntarily after serving their constitutionally mandated term; must have democratically transferred power to their successor; must have left office in the last three years and must have demonstrated excellence in leadership during their time in office. For a number of reasons, these criteria are extremely restrictive. The prize is only limited to heads of state. If you have not held the office of the President, you are not eligible to receive the prize. True, an exception was made in the case of former South African President Nelson Mandela and for Archbishop Desmond Tutu. Both did not meet the criteria but were awarded an Honorary Prize for their part in the struggle against apartheid in their home country. They were given a token sum and the full monetary prize. The prize is not awarded to vice presidents, cabinet ministers, governors, mayors, parliamentarians, civil or public servants, civil society activists or even ordinary citizens who have done public service. It is indeed true that the immense powers vested in executive presidents in many African states put them in a strong position in which they can positively impact the lives of their citizens. However, to assume that they are the only ones who in all 54 countries in Africa can have that impact is specious. It continues to perpetuate the perception in many countries that the only way one can be of service is by becoming president. It is no wonder that in many countries almost everyone wants to be president. In addition, it diminishes the role of the other organs and institutions of government especially the legislature and the judiciary. There are already major questions about executive dominance over these other organs – a situation that has severe implications for our “democracies”. To win the prize, the President must have left office in the last three years. This is a significant restriction on the pool of candidates available for the prize. Every year, very few leaders leave office in Africa. According to the Electoral Institute for Sustainable Democracy in Africa website (http://www.eisa.org.za/WEP/calaf.htm), in 2014 there will be at least six presidential elections in Africa – Malawi, Algeria, Egypt, Mozambique, Namibia and South Africa. A possible seventh maybe held in Guinea Bissau but with them one is never certain. In 2015, there will be another six – Comoros, Nigeria, Côte d'ivoire, Mauritania, South Sudan and Togo. In almost all of these elections most of the leaders are eligible for re-election and may likely be elected, whether by hook or by crook. Even fewer of the leaders who leave office are able to meet all the other stringent conditions of the prize. Why then restrict the prize to the past three years. Let us assume that in 2014, all the incumbents are defeated and, for the sake of argument, let us assume that all of them meet all the criteria set out for the prize. Based on the current guidelines, one president will miss out or the selectors, headed by Kofi Annan and includes Gracia Machel and former Irish President Mary Robinson, may have to show some ingenuity by doing a joint award. In the next few years, the likelihood of finding a winner is just as remote as it has been in the past seven years. The potential candidates in the next few years include Tanzania’s President Jakaya Mrisho Kikwete who steps down in 2015 after two five-year terms. Kikwete is credited for the “Big Results Now” initiative which seeks to help Tanzania achieve its Vision 2025 goal to become a middle-income country. His supporters also point to many infrastructural developments especially the construction of roads. He has also been instrumental in regional economic integration and in peace efforts in the DRC. Kikwete’s chances may be dampened by Tanzania’s constant fall in the Mo Ibrahim Index of African Governance. It dropped from 10th in 2012 to 17th this year. The increasing reports of corruption and human rights violations may also ruin his chances. If he decides not to tamper with the constitution and seek a third term or tries to do a ‘Putin’ and puts some stooge in power whilst he maintains real power as Prime Minister or in some other capacity, Rwanda’s Paul Kagame may be eligible for consideration in 2017. According to Newsweek magazine, Kagame is “the man who has led Rwanda from the ashes of the 1994 genocide—one of the late 20th century’s greatest atrocities—to hope and prosperity: a land of fast growth and rare good economic governance with enviable advances in health care, education, and women’s rights.” It further describes him as a bulwark of stability in a volatile region. His human rights record and his role in the DRC may well be his Achilles’ heel. Sources indicate that Joyce Banda’s chances of winning free and fair elections in Malawi are relatively slim. It is unlikely that she may be considered for the prize having spent only two years in office. To increase the pool of candidates available, the selectors may also want to consider extending the prize to include current presidents. As it is right now, the prize seems more of a pension payment. Most former leaders play a very limited role after leaving office. Chissano continues to be active as an elder statesman and peace envoy. He served as Special Envoy of the United Nations Secretary-General to Northern Uganda and Southern Sudan. Mogae currently serves as Special Envoy of the United Nations Secretary-General on Climate Change, and Pires serves on the West Africa Commission on Drugs. Their role and impact is extremely limited compared to when they wielded executive powers. This then provokes the question, why not give the prize to sitting presidents who may see it an incentive to do more to promote good governance in office, and continue receiving the prize thereby having to worry less about retirement and whether they will win the prize. An additional concern relates to the data the selectors use in making their decision. I assume that they use Mo Ibrahim’s index. This index relies on information provided by inter alia the World Bank, World Health Organisation, UNICEF, Economist Intelligence Unit, US State Department and Freedom House. Some of the data used by these organizations are usually anachronistic, self-serving and out of touch with reality. We all know as a fact that many of our African presidents who are eulogized abroad are loathed at home. Whatever criticism one levels against the prize, Mo Ibrahim deserves commendation for focusing on seeking to address the executive leadership deficit within the continent. Governance and political leadership in Africa is extremely essential if the continent is to overcome the challenges of underdevelopment. Bad politics and poor leadership have destroyed many countries in Africa. The past seven years have shown that the scope of the prize must be expanded to include more than just former presidents. Leadership must be built not just top-down but also bottom-up. The other organs and institutions of government must be made stronger and their leadership built if we are to have an executive presidency that will resist the temptation of usurping their powers, thereby creating an enabling environment for a better Africa. Abdul Tejan-Cole writes from Dakar, Senegal. Follow him on twitter @atejancole © Politico 07/11/13
