adminTichaona Zindoga Political Editor
On June 9, Peter Fabricius, South Africa’s Independent Newspapers’ Foreign Editor, wrote an article titled, “Third-termism the new African cancer” (Africa has to be a diseased place always, doesn’t it?).
He reported on a discussion that had been held whose conclusion was that, “Attempts by African leaders to circumvent constitutional term limits so they could stay in power longer had become a major source of conflict on the continent . . .” He explained that these attempts, which have been dubbed “third-termism”— had become the “new coups” on the continent.
Fabricius is not alone in this foreboding. In mid-May Al Jazeera had a piece titled, “Stop third termism in Africa”, which apart from portraying this supposedly African disease, felt relief that “the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) . . . will table a new clause that would prohibit presidents of member countries from ruling for more than two terms. Should it succeed, this move by ECOWAS will signal a welcome and refreshing change of the big-man and old-man politics that continue to dominate leadership in many African states. It is to be hoped that other regional communities will follow suit, though this may prove challenging so long as the ilk of Bashir, Mugabe, Dos Santos and Museveni remain in power.”
Let us have one last specimen.
On June 11, in the run up to the African Union summit in South Africa, another news organisation, CNBC Africa, wondered whether the African Union would discuss the third term issue.
An analyst, one Keith Gottschalk from the University of the Western Cape, even called President Zuma of South Africa to evoke some special powers on the issue.
He said, “This will require tough talking face to face by President Zuma and others to put some countervailing pressure on them.”
It is be interesting to discuss this phenomenon of “third termism”, which no doubt we are sure to hear more and more of as a political paradigm, or as a stick with which to beat Africa? We attempt to answer the questions such as whether this is indeed an African peculiarity; what the preferences to the so-called third termism are and who is behind the push for the preclusion of third terms.
It is also be critical to interrogate the practicality of the restriction to single or two terms. First, third terms — if a disease it be — is not particularly African.
It will interest the reader that although term limits, and particularly two-term limits, are obtaining in most political systems, there are a number of notable countries that don’t recognise these limits.
Britain is one example where a Prime Minister has no term limits, less so the monarchy that rules that great democratic land.
Switzerland has unlimited non-consecutive one-year terms; the Netherlands has unlimited four-year terms; Italy has unlimited seven-year terms while in Germany the president has two five-year terms although the effective head of government, the German Chancellor, does not have a term limit.
In Australia, the effective head of government, the Prime Minister, does not have a term limit, which also applies to Canada. In light of the above, it is rather preposterous and rather racist to portray third terms as something undemocratic and an African disease. Unless one is talking about that being done outside the constitution. But then, constitutions are bound to be amended at one point or other — is that not the benefit of popular mandates?
In which case, anyone who seeks re-election can simply be defeated by the electorate as a rebuttal to his or her hunger for power. It is instructive to note that the US, which is no doubt being imitated in the two-term system, took no less than 300 years to set the limit.
The XXII Amendment of the American constitution was only passed in February 1951, stating that, “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President, shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.”
Before that the two term limit was more of a convention following the example set by George Washington.
What is good for America …
It is no doubt that much of global issues today are coming at the instance of, or being modelled around, American systems.
That is today the language of democracy and human rights pervading the world, with America as the policeman.
What is good for America should be good for everyone else: that seems to be rule. Unfortunately, things do not work that way and that is for two basic reasons.
First, it is rather absurd to have to be perfect in what Americans have taken three centuries and more to mould.
Africa, by the way, is only 51 years old and the American democratic practice is of an American type, scriptural. The youngest African nation, South Sudan, is barely five years.
The second reason is that America’s “democratic” system is itself not perfect and countries can develop and advance without it, the way China has done. But you have to give it to the Americans.
Their system is structured and governed by rules and conventions so much so that you do not have a change of government changing the whole American regime. That is, you cannot have some president or a party upsetting the applecart. Hence, they can afford to have a black President and systems work as if nothing has happened.
And they have two dominant parties, the Republicans and Democrats, who agree on all major issues affecting their country except on minor things like whether women and girls should abort or whether gay couples should be recognised. You do not have such convergence of national interest in places such as Zimbabwe where you can be as sure as hell that if you allow a person like Morgan Tsvangirai near the reins of power he will fight to undo what the revolutionary party and President Mugabe have built over the years of national sacrifice just because the Americans say he should.
That is why people talk of regime change. It is more profound than a mere change of government.
Even though Barack Obama made history by becoming the first black President of America, it was not a regime change, it was simply a change of the occupants of the White House.
It works in America and Britain and other developed countries. It will come to Africa if Africans want it.
President Mugabe’s two weeks
Of course last week President Mugabe trashed the idea of two-term limits, noting that time can fly and all seem like “two weeks”. He did not mean it literally.
But in a continent where there is still a lot of work to be done, term limits are not a priority. It’s not merely administrative, clerical kind of work that some systems have for their presidents, more or less.
There is infrastructure to be put in place and institutions to be built, all the while to reverse the legacies of colonialism. Where they are popular and continue to be voted into power, visionaries like President Mugabe build nations and leave them on the right pedestal.
That is why they are needed and may not have the luxury of rest. And if these visionaries begin to be confined to limited terms who does it serve? This brings us to the last point of this submission.
From the quotations above, we hear someone complaining about the “ilk” of Mugabe.
Interestingly, this ilk happens to stand in the way of an opposition preferred by western governments.
Thus two-term limits become an instrument of control by outsiders using the cover of your own constitutions (which the same outsiders would have funded).
South Africa is often given as a good example of following the two term limits and former president Nelson Mandela is even more glorified for it.
The question, what have the successive Presidents of South Africa done to dismantle the apartheid machinery in their respective “two weeks” in power?
What’s so magical, glorious, about two terms, anyway?
Online Reporter