Museveni defending Gaddafi.....How?!?!!?!?!

                                                 

Like many Africans I have reservations with the west prescribing ‘sound solutions’ for African problems, and would therefore in many ways align myself with African scholars who have had enough of meddling by the west in the guise of offering much needed, sensible, practical solutions and elucidations about how to successfully steer countries from histories of autocracy, dictatorship and poor governance to the path of democracy. Indeed, nothing would make me more proud than successful home-grown solutions for the seemingly endless challenges faced by many African countries. As a matter of fact I have no doubt of Africa’s capability to resolve to address its own challenges as individual states, as regional blocks and as continent (of immense potential) at large.

The tract record of African countries and their leaders in trying to address African challenges is wanting which has in many ways justified intervention by the west – and now more than even, the east. Many strongly opine their dissatisfaction at the way African has handled the various challenges it has faced since countries got independence from colonial masters – who still have a very strong grip on these African states.

On the other hand, actions by the west in attempting solutions for Africa have many times been criticized for there insincerity as is evident here and here.

Hence begs the question, are African’s completely incapable of solving their own problems? Does intervention by the west in whatever form mean that Africa has been condemned to handouts/aid for the rest of its existence? Are African leaders sincere in vilifying the west and purporting to prescribe solutions? What would be a lesser evil, letting Africa to its own wiles? Or allowing the west to intercede and import their notion of democracy which may not necessarily be ideal for an African situation?

As I went through the newspaper last week and stumbled upon a two part series of an article  written by the Uganda’s President Yoweri K. Museveni (or “M7” as he is popularly referred to) I was left wondering; however strongly I would love to advocate and agitate for African solutions to African problems, however much I would love to praise efforts by African leaders in seeking African solutions, however much I’d love to highlight the gains made so far by Africans for Africa, however much I would love to vilify and chide the west for lacking a sense of judgment and being insincere dishonest and utterly hypocritical in prescribing solutions for Africa, would I be so desperate as to align myself with President Museveni’s sentiments and extol one of Africa’s longest serving dictators for being a good dictator (read good-not so bad- African leader).

In weighing my options, would I settle for a local evil as opposed to a foreign evil – therefore align myself with the saying “better the devil you know……blah blah blah….”?!?

Well my answer to these questions would be simple, I would not settle for any evil (read devil) PERIOD!! My reasons for this spring from the following;

President Museveni elaborately (or so it seems) describes Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi’s not so good personality. He mentions the Idi Amin assistance, the unrealistic U.S of African project, interference with internal affairs of countries by reaching out to tribal chieftains and kings, and his seeming alignment to terrorist activities (FIVE POINTS AGAINST!).  

He then ‘quite elaborately’ talks about President Gaddafi’s ‘positive attributes’ mentioning his independent-mindedness in internal and foreign policies, reducing exploitation by the west in the crude oil market, good roads as seen on TV and from a plane, and his pro-women empowerment in education as well as the disciplined forces (FOUR POINTS) – he struggles to get a fifth, and I think gives up along the way!!

He then goes ahead and gives reasons (that end up painting a spitting similarity between him and Gaddafi) and hence the reason why I believe he should be the last person to glorify Gaddafi and vilify the west for invading Libya.

He refers to the Libyan revolution as an insurrection and not a revolution (I wonder the difference) in essence terming it criminal (I wonder how he would justify his liberation movement of the 1980’s?!?!). He then chides external forces for arrogating themselves the role of questioning the legitimacy of a government when they lack enough knowledge to decide rightly. He finally declares his disdain for foreign interventions terming them…an allergy!!

What he did not say about Gaddafi and which he too is quite guilty of, therefore lacking ‘the intestinal fortitude to mention’ is as follows; hiring of mercenaries to assassinate critics both local and foreign, arbitrary arrests, detentions and executions, conscription of child soldiers, negative ethnicity, corruption, extrajudicial killings, desperate attempts at clinging to power including ruthlessly crushing dissent and opposition and changing the constitution, electoral malpractices, disenfranchisement of opposition friendly zones/communities, etc.

This list would definitely blanket the already outnumbered ‘positives’.

Would I – in a quest for an independent democratic Africa – align myself with the actions of either of these leaders in a desperate attempt at making the west look bad? I don’t think so.

Museveni lacks the fortitude to interrogate these issues and certainly lacks the moral audacity to point fingers and blame. If this is the populist notion of homegrown solutions, I beg to pass.

The fact that the Libyan invasion by the west is suspect is not in doubt, but what too isn’t in doubt is the inability of the many Musevenis and Gaddafis (many of whom have chosen to remain mum – and rightly so) on the African continent, to prescribe beneficial solutions to Africa’s many challenges.