Burundi coup a consequence of EAC leaders procrastination

Burundi is on the verge of becoming Africa’s latest basket case after the army overthrew an intransigent President showing scant respect for the country’s Constitution; a sacred document he swore to defend. After weeks of violence in Bujumbura and other towns in which over 19 people died; a week in which President Pierre Nkurunziza put his conscience on hold, the army took the initiative to jettison him while he was in Tanzania.

Characteristic of the tinpot dictators Africa has had before; Nkurunziza regarded himself infallible, larger than life. In his mind, Burundi need him, not the other way round. But as Nkurunziza mulishly stayed put, detached as the people he led were clobbered and mowed down by the police, the region’s leadership maintained studious silence, perhaps assailed by some guilt because they could in a way identify with him; he mirrored their covert ambitions.

As if in response to Thomas Jefferson’s assertion that all what tyranny need to gain a foothold was for people of conscience to remain silent, Burundians hit the streets. The army on its part warned it would not support Nkurunziza’s third stab at the presidency. That should have made Nkurunziza pause and reflect. For someone who lost his family to the violence that rocked this tiny African nation prior to the South African brokered peace in Dar salaam in 2002, Nkurunziza should have appreciated cost and pain of political violence and back-pedaled.

Instead, he became bullish and insisted elections would go on as scheduled despite entreaties from the international community to postpone them owing to the volatile situation. After the impasse, worsened by a compliant Supreme Court ruling, it was only a matter of time before something gave.

Now that the army has taken over Burundi, regional heads of state have come out strongly to condemn the coup, saying it was going against the grain of constitutionality.

One would think, going by this reasoning, the deposed president adhered to the Constitution. This shameless application of double standards is a manifestation of leadership problems suffocating the continent. Nkurunziza’s pitch for a third term must have had the tacit approval of his peers. Most of them sail in the same boat. 

Democracy in Uganda is an alien concept. President Museveni manipulated the constitution to have the ‘till death do us part’ pact with the presidency. President Paul Kagame of Rwanda is agonising over how he could manipulate the Constitution for a third term. We cannot even begin to talk about Zimbabwe. In Kenya, the ruling party is determined, even sure of running the country beyond 2027.

Will Burundi’s army exhibit the same maturity their Burkina Faso counterparts showed after President Blaise Compaore was deposed? Ethnic under-currents between the Hutus and Tutsis that had barely retreated could rear up again and set the country aflame. Unfortunately, citizens took to the streets to celebrate the ouster, oblivious of the fact that they had probably jumped from the frying pan into the fire. The army, constitutions and democracy do not mix.

Clearly, Burundi’s opposition will not sit back and watch the army trample on the democratic gains the country had realised since 2005. Once the premature euphoria cools down, when services slowly grind to a halt as sanctions bite, the people will realise the army was not the alternative to Nkurunziza’s despotism.

The celebratory mood in Libya after the ouster of Muammar Quadaffi was infectious. The same happened in Egypt after Hosni Mubarak’s ouster. Ditto Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, but things took a turn for the worst.

Regional heads of states, and indeed the African Union, have failed Burundi, like they did South Sudan. They failed to be their brother’s keeper by procrastinating. Having failed to prevail upon Nkurunziza to forgo his dangerous ambitions, it will be interesting to see how they will handle the army. There is nothing positive to say about military regimes in Africa.