What if Africa, from the point of view of law and democracy, had fallen thirty years later, for waiting and wallowing in a sweet deviation, for perfect democracy to fall from heaven or arise from heaven? savannah or forest?
You ask yourself a question this morning: What’s going on in Bamako? “Coup d’Etat in the coup,” says Emmanuel Macron; “Correction of the transition”, indicate those who are close to the putschists. And Colonel Assimi Goïta to confirm his acceptance of the coup. Why then does he not pretend to be impressed by the threats of sanctions from ECOWAS, the African Union and the international community?
Maybe because he’s not impressed. By varying according to the circumstances of their demands for democracy, these African institutions and the international community are determining what they have left of credibility and legitimacy in the eyes of many Africans. We cannot tolerate the abandonment of the rule of law and democracy under certain heavens, of inviting oneself as an arbitrator for satisfaction, two countries ahead. This tendency to set principles that one strives to break with confusing consequence erodes what is needed of credibility and legitimacy, to have the right to impose on people rules that they agree to respect.
After all, the crime of the military at the Malian crossing is reminiscent of a reflection of Jacques Chirac, which Africa had unanimously condemned and rejected at the time. In February 1990, between Abidjan and Cotonou, he declared that Africa was not mature enough for democracy.
Maybe we would have done better then to try to understand what he wanted to mean and perhaps expressed awkwardly. Africa could have wondered, had the necessary leap, to prepare to enter democracy. And the continent today would not have the feeling of having wasted thirty years believing in Ligue 1, when some people could hardly claim to play nationally or even in the CFA.
And then, how would the Africans have reacted, if Chirac had said it today, to the coup that took place in Mali?
Apparently, Katine’s putschists are not the only ones involved. In the chain of responsibilities, we can also evoke the opponents who have leveled their way, the power they have overthrown, ECOWAS and the African Union, who pretended not to accept this coup, and then want to frame it, therefore legitimize it.
Outside Mali, the terrifying spectacle that Chad also offers falls under the reflection of Jacques Chirac, as do the current third terms in Côte d’Ivoire and Guinea, and all these democracies (Cameroon, Congo Brazzaville, Equatorial Guinea), where we organize ourselves. to make variations impossible. And these other democracies (Gabon, Togo), where the apparatus is programmed so that the sons succeed the fathers. These two countries alone give up to more than a hundred years in power for these two families.
Finally, should we understand that Chirac was right?
We must understand that Africa must come together if it does not want to prove Chirac right. All the more so since none of these regimes admits to having taken a leave of absence from democracy, which at least would have benefited from sincerity.
In the face of such a table, yes, for a few days we will wonder if our Africa does not turn Chirac into a prophet, for believing that perfect democracy will one day fall from the sky, or come out of the desert, the savannah or the forest.
.
