They have ruled for more than 20 years and even  though their countries have made little or no progress under their leadership, they are unwilling to quit the political stage

The wind of change began in Tunisia on December 18 and swept with it the government of ex-President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, which had been in public office for 23 years. On January 25, it spread to Egypt where it has already forced President Hosni Mubarak to embrace political reforms. Those protesting against his regime which has been in place for 30 years want him to resign and give way for a democratic system of government.

Tunisia and Egypt are not the only countries in Africa with sit-tight leaders. There are many of them in the African political scene and they do not seem ready to embrace reforms that can lead to truly democratic government.

One of such countries is Cameroon where Paul Biya has been in the saddle for 29 years.  Biya took over from Ahmadou Ahidjo, his predecessor, on November 4, 1982, and has ruled the country since then. Biya began his administration well by moving towards a more democratic government, but a failed coup d’état hardened him and led him towards the dictatorial leadership style of his predecessor.

To ensure his total grip on the country’s politics, he ensured the passage of laws which gave the Cameroonian president broad and unilateral powers to create policy, administer government agencies, command the armed forces, negotiate and ratify treaties, and declare a state of emergency. The president also appoints government officials at all levels, from the prime minister who is considered as the official head of government, to the provincial governors, divisional officers, and urban-council members in large cities. The president is selected by popular vote every seven years. In smaller municipalities, the public elects mayors and councillors. The opposition is virtually non-existent in Cameroon.

The Cameroonians have little benefits from his long years of rule. Though Cameroon’s Gross Domestic Product, GDP, was estimated at US $2,300 in 2008 making it one of the 10 highest in sub-Saharan Africa, ordinary Cameroonians live amidst decaying infrastructure and hardship.

The scenario is very much the same in Chad. Idriss Deby, rose to power in a coup against the Hissène Habré administration in 1990, 21 years ago, and recently won a third term in presidential elections in May 2006, gaining 77.5 percent of the vote. The result was rejected by the opposition. Earlier, he won Chad’s first presidential election in 1996 after overseeing the introduction of a multi-party constitution and was re-elected in 2001. Presidential elections have been scheduled for April 2011. In 2005, voters supported constitutional changes allowing Deby to stand for a third term.

There have been attempts to forcefully remove him from office though. He survived an attempt to topple him in April 2006 when rebels attacked the capital and  in February 2008 when rebels came again. But again they were repelled by government forces backed by French military support. He is also facing a split within his Zaghawa ethnic group and by defections and desertions in the military.

His long stay in the presidential office has not touched the masses’ lives either. The country is one of the poorest and one of the most corrupt in the world; most Chadians live in abject poverty as subsistence farmers and cattle rearers, though Chad has been making huge earnings from exporting crude oil since 2003.

Chad’s constitution provides for a strong executive branch headed by a president who dominates the political system. The president has the power to appoint the prime minister and the cabinet, and exercises considerable influence over appointments of judges, military generals, provincial officials and heads of Chad’s parastatals. In cases of grave and immediate threat, the president, in consultation with the National Assembly, may declare a state of emergency. The president is directly elected by popular vote for a five-year term. In 2005, constitutional term limits were removed.

Zimbabwe where Robert Mugabe has been president for 30 years is another sad story of a country that has remained under one leader for many years. Initially, Mugabe was a key figure in the struggle for independence, particularly when he reached out to the white minority and his political rivals in charting a pragmatic approach to the economy. However, he soon expelled from his government of national unity the party whose stronghold was in the south of the country and launched an anti-opposition campaign in which thousands died.

In the mid-1990s, he embarked on a programme of land redistribution, in retaliation for Britain’s reneging on its side of the Lancaster House agreements which allowed for indigenous ownerships of the land after full payment over a period. However, a steady decline in the economy followed as land forcefully seized could not be properly utilised by mainly poor black Zimbabweans. This eventually precipitated the collapse of the agriculture-based economy and as a result, the country has endured rampant inflation and critical food and fuel shortages.

Consequently, many Zimbabweans survive on grain handouts. Others have voted with their feet; hundreds of thousands of Zimbabweans, including much-needed professionals have emigrated.

As the opposition to his rule increased, he and his ruling ZANU-PF party members grew more determined to cling to power. Situations got tense and reached breaking point during the 2008 presidential elections. In the elections, ZANU-PF lost its parliamentary majority and Morgan Tsvangirai, opposition leader, reportedly defeated Mugabe in the presidential vote but with insufficient votes to avoid a run-off.

After a tense stand-off over the result, a power-sharing agreement was reached which saw Mugabe’s return to office for another term in June 2008 as president while Tsvangirai emerged as prime minister. Mugabe still controls the country through his firm grip on agriculture, the economy, the interior and police ministries.

A mass uprising in Zimbabwe is a possibility. But this might not be immediate as many opposition figures and able-bodied men and women have fled the country.

Muammar Ghadaffi’s Libya is yet another story of a sit-tight leader. He is the Arab world’s longest-serving leader who has survived several attempts on his life. The people love and revere him for his reinvention of Libya’s system of government which dwells solely on improving the lot of the masses. Libya, under his rule has developed and is enjoying a stable and vibrant economy from crude oil earnings, which constitute practically all export earnings and about one-quarter of its GDP. The World Bank designates Libya as an “Upper Middle Income Economy,” along with only seven other African countries. In the early 1980s, Libya was one of the wealthiest countries in the world; its GNP per capita was higher than that of countries such as Italy, Singapore, South Korea, Spain and New Zealand.

From a hard-line stance against the West, Gaddaffi has softened and is now a key Western ally. Sayf al-Islam Gaddafi, one of Gaddafi’s eight children, is said to be behind the drive to break Libya’s isolation. He has denied reports that he is being groomed to succeed his father.

Life after twice-married Gaddafi who is in his late 60s is the problem that Libya might face after his eventual demise. There is no framework for his succession and he has carefully avoided designating a successor.

Yoweri Museveni, Uganda’s leader since 1986, was declared the winner of elections in February 2006, the first multi-party poll in 25 years.  Officials said he took 59 percent of the votes as against the 37 percent share of Kizza Besigye, his main rival, from the opposition Forum for Democratic Change.

The conduct of the poll was an improvement on the 2001 vote, but critics accused the government of intimidating the opposition in the run-up to the elections. The ruling party-controlled parliament abolished a constitutional limit on presidential terms in 2005, paving the way for Museveni to seek a third elected term.

In Sudan, Omar Hassan al-Bashir, who came to power in a military coup in 1989, has ruled with an iron fist ever since. The fact that he is wanted on genocide and war crimes charges has not changed anything. He heads a government of national unity that includes leaders of southern Sudan. South Sudan has limited political autonomy and has been promised the option of full independence in a referendum in 2011.

When he assumed office in the 1989 through a military coup against the elected government of Prime Minister Sadiq al-Mahdi, he dissolved parliament, banned political parties and set up and chaired the Revolutionary Command Council for National Salvation, which ruled through a civilian government.

He formed an alliance with Hassan al-Turabi, the leader of the National lslamic Front, who is thought to be behind the introduction of Islamic Sharia law in the north in 1991. In 1993, al-Bashir dissolved the Revolutionary Command for National Salvation, thereby concentrating power in his own hands.

Al-Bashir was elected president in 1996. A new constitution was drawn up and the window of political participation was slightly opened. But this changed in late 1999, Bashir dissolved parliament and declared a state of emergency after Turabi tried to give parliament the power to remove the president and to reinstate the post of prime minister.

Al-Bashir won a re-election in 2000. Supporters of the National Congress Party filled the parliament. The opposition boycotted the polls, accusing Bashir of vote-rigging.

In April 2010, he again won Sudan’s first multi-party elections in 24 years. International observers criticised the election as massively flawed. Many opposition parties withdrew from the race, alleging widespread vote rigging and intimidation.

Charles Taylor’s Lawyer Protests

      Pita Ochai

The trial of Charles Taylor has suffered a setback again. Courtenay Griffiths, defense lawyer to Charles Taylor, was unable to submit his final written brief to the court before the date fixed for further hearing. Griffiths had attempted to summit the brief to the court on Tuesday, February 8, which was 20 days after the deadline but the judges rejected it. That annoyed Griffiths and he consequently walked out of the court. “We have decided not to participate in these closing arguments. How will posterity judge the credibility of this court if, at this 11th hour, they prevented Taylor from presenting 90 percent of his closing argument,” he said after leaving the courtroom.

But the absence of the defence lawyer did not stop the prosecutors. They had continued with their closing statement to the court despite the absence of Griffith. Taylor also failed to appear in court after the first break of the morning section. He was alleged to be ill and in need of some rest, although he had shown no sign of discomfort during the first two hours of the morning session. However, he had been forced to listen to Brenda Hollis, a prosecutor accuse him of having been the central figure in waging the campaign of terror in Sierra Leone in the 1990s.

Teresa Doherty, a judge, said Taylor’s action was a deliberate blight on the orders of the court and ordered the hearing to continue with or without him.

Taylor is facing 11-count charges on war crimes and crimes against humanity. The prosecutors said that Taylor, Liberian president 1997-2003, armed and controlled the Revolutionary United Front, RUF, during a 10-year campaign of terror conducted largely against civilians. The RUF became infamous for hacking off the limbs of their victims, and using rape and murder to terrorise the population. He is accused of selling blood diamonds for the rebels in return for supplying them with weapons. “The crimes suffered by the people of Sierra Leone would not have occurred but for Taylor’s supervision and support for the RUF,” the prosecutors said in their final trial brief.

The trial started in June 2007, Taylor had boycotted the opening, arguing that he would not get a fair trial. The verdict is expected later this year.

Mubarak to Quit

Hosni Mubarak, Egyptian president, is likely to be forced out of office by the current revolution in the country. Hossan Badrawi, secretry general, National Democratic Party, NDP, said that the party has concluded arrangements for Mubarak to hand over power to Omar Sulleman, the vice- president.

The US intelligence agency also confirmed the statement by Badrawi. He said there is the likelihood that Mubarak would yield to the demand of the protesters who have remained on the streets for more than two weeks.

The recent stands of the NDP runs contrary to Mubarak’s earlier stand that he would not vacate office until September this year

Rather than stepping down, Mubarak has embraced dialogue and national reconciliation with the aggrieved parties in the country.

He has also started a process he called a clear map for a peaceful transfer which would move the country towards a peaceful transfer of power. To achieve that, he last week set up two committees to organise a smooth transition in the country. Among the expected changes are a relaxation of the rules on who is eligible to stand for president, and the setting of a limit for presidential terms.

But the promises of transition has not in any way appealed to the protesters as they have continued demand for Mubarak’s immediate resignation. They are sceptical about any transition managed by the Mubarak-led government. Some protesters are staying overnight in the  Tahir Square, sleeping around tanks to prevent them from moving while several hundreds of people still queue at one of the entrance to the Square. “We don’t care what they are promising. Our demand is that Mubarak must leave,” said Mariam Hussien, a protester.

The US has called on the Egyptian government to hasten its transition to new government. The White House described a comment by Omar Suleiman, Egyptian vice- president, that the country was not ready for democracy as unhelpful.

The unrest over the last two weeks has resulted in fierce clashes with police, and pitched battles between protesters and Mubarak supporters. Human Rights Watch, HRW, confirmed the deaths of 297 people since January 25 when the protest started. The figure is based on counts from eight hospitals in the cities of Cairo, Alexandria and Suez. But no death toll has been given by the Egyptian government.