While staring at a certain Tony Abbot -By Tunji Ajibade

Tunji Ajibade

It is possible to win gold medals in all kind of contests these days.

Even those whose bellies can accommodate more bottled sugary drinks than others are titled world champions. But there are worthier titles to contend for which Africa has yet to win. Well, the continent often arrives late on most indexes; but we do arrive, somehow. Now, a medal Africa needs to win is in the maintenance of stable democracies, staging democratic coups in a democratic dispensation, that is, changing government through popular choice and in a peaceful way. Britain, with its parliamentary form of government, popularises democratic coups, meaning that leaders of the party in power sit in a room and change the leadership of the nation. The better known late Mrs. Margaret Thatcher was a notable casualty. But the Asians have got good at the game, and it used to be that Japan changed prime ministers like one changed toothbrush, although curiously its economy was hardly affected. That angle to Japan had always fascinated me at the time it was happening. The scenario has since changed; what with the ultra-nationalist Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, sitting pretty comfortably in his Tokyo office while he causes discomfort for China, Japan’s eternal rival.

With the recent exit of Australia’s Prime Minister, Tony Abbot, his country has beaten Japan to the gold medal in staging the most democratic coups. Four prime ministers in two years; that’s how well the Aussies have done for themselves in the practice of changing leadership by peaceful means. At the time Abbot became the latest casualty in September, many issues had not been going his way both with the public and his party’s leadership. From my standpoint, while I had had reasons to clap on this page (September 26, 2014) for Abbot’s effort to combat terrorism in the Middle East, the manner the challenge of boat migrants from northern parts of Asia was handled had got me sceptical about what his government was doing. I got discordant notes over the matter; my impression was of a government that had no policy on an issue that was of national concern.

In the face of this, everyone saw a challenge to Abbot’s leadership coming from his Liberal Party members. This made some in the coalition to warn against repeating recent changes in leadership that had unintended consequences for the immediate past government of the Labour Party. At the time, Labour Party’s Deputy Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, had toppled her boss, Kevin Rudd. Rudd toppled her later, and in the 2013 general election, Rudd himself was shown the way out of power, paving the way for Abbot’s Liberal Party to come into office.

Before the latest palace coup that sent Abbot out of office, it was known that cabinet and backbench government members in parliament didn’t feel comfortable with his performance. It was said that he wanted to sacrifice some ministers for the poor standing his administration had with the public. Other ministers in his cabinet were unhappy about this, just as opinion polls indicated that the electorate would soon throw Abbot’s party out of power.

All of that led to Malcolm Turnbull, the Minister of Communications, saying he wanted to challenge Abbott for the party leadership. His reason was that if Abbott remained in power, the party would lose in the general election scheduled to take place mid-2016. Turnbull said the prime minister had messed up the economy, never really had a policy direction, lost the confidence of the private sector, failed to explain to connect with the public on major issues. Turnbull got away with the challenge. That could only happen in a country where the people had learnt to separate public policy issues and political matters that are of general public interest from ethno-religious sentiments. Were the Turnbull challenge to take place in an African country, some ethnic jingoists would have read it as an effort to victimise, and they would have carried placards, threatening fire if their son was removed from office.

Incidentally, the Abbot saga happened at the time I was settling down to remembering his name more often, as well as recognise his face better as that of the man who was the occupant of Australia’s Government House. Meanwhile, he would have been sent packing earlier in February, except for luck that was on his side. That’s the nature of democratic practice. You are in today, you are out tomorrow once no one cares anymore about the songs you sing as the man in the saddle.

That it happened to Abbot testified to how well democracy works in Australia, a thing that got President Barack Obama of the United States excited so much that he called Abbot and congratulated him for being peacefully voted out of power (although he didn’t forget to praise Abbot for his collaboration with the US in confronting vital global challenges). That was much the same position Obama took back in July when he was on Africa’s soil, a point that’s so relevant for the continent.

Obama had come to Addis Ababa and told the African Union that he couldn’t understand why any leader would want to rule forever. He had cited his own aspirations to make a comparison. He said he was looking forward to life away from the White House after he must have completed his term by early 2017. So, when Abbot left office, Obama was happy for him, because there is always life after office, and generally life after office is less hectic than life in office. In the course of his address to the AU, Obama had further pointed to Africa, noting that in addition to other factors, the continent’s democratic progress was at risk from leaders who refused to step aside when their terms ended. He had said, “I have to be honest with you-I just don’t understand this.

I am in my second term. Under our constitution, I cannot run again. There’s still so much I want to get done to keep America moving forward. But the law is the law and no one is above it, not even presidents. And, frankly, I’m looking forward to life after being President. It will mean more time with my family, new ways to serve, and more visits to Africa. When a leader tries to change the rules in the middle of the game just to stay in office, it risks instability and strife, as we’ve seen in Burundi. And it’s often just a first step down a perilous path. But if a leader thinks they’re the only person who can hold their nation together, then that leader has failed to truly build their country.”

Did Obama see Abbot losing out in a leadership contest and stepping aside thereafter as contributing to the building of a stronger Australia? I think the answer to this is more relevant for Africa than for Australia that had been under democratic rule far longer than the African continent. I noted earlier that the disposition of Obama with regard to Australia’s situation was important for Africa. This is because of the argument some have put up to the effect that the continent has cultural practices which predispose it to authoritarian leadership and lifetime tenures in office. They also point out that Africa needs to adapt western democratic practices to its local condition. That may be a good argument, but only up to a point.

The AU Commission and leaders on the continent will need to sit up and face the reality of the grave threat leaders who wish to rule forever pose to the peace and security of the continent. They can put the term limit matter to vote in Addis Ababa. A simple majority should do in making them rule that there should be regular elections in every country, and elected leaders who try to exceed two terms in office will be collectively resisted. Looking the recalcitrant in the eyes and refusing to back down will be the only way out for the AU at this critical point. This may take time to work, but it will work. Africa has been late in making people’s choice count, but we can rise and beat others to the significant medals in this area if our political leaders put their minds to it.