Guinea`s Military Coup a Blessing in Disguise?
blurb:isstoday6Jan09
6 January 2009: Guinea’s Military Coup a Blessing in Disguise?
On 22 December 2008, the long-term ruler of Guinea, General Lansana Conté, died after a long illness. A military junta seized power a few hours after the announcement on state radio and television of the passing away of President Conté. A middle-ranking army officer called Captain Moussa Dadis Camara, until then barely known outside military barracks, who called his group the National Council for Democracy and Development (CNDD), leads the junta. In a first move common to almost all military coups d’état, the CNDD announced the dissolution of the government and parliament and suspended the Constitution. In justifying their move, the coup leaders stated the failure of the dissolved state institutions to fulfil their responsibility vis-à-vis the Guinean people who have been reduced to poverty and despair. This is despite the countless riches with which nature – or God for the believers – has endowed their country.
There were divergent statements for about 24 hours, with the coup leaders stating they were in control of the situation, while the future ex-Prime Minister and Speaker of Parliament insisted – in interviews to foreign media – that they were in control. In accordance with Article 34 of the Constitution, the latter requested the president of the Supreme Court to officially note the vacancy of the presidency and declare him the caretaker Head of State.
Amid the confusion created by these divergent declarations, ordinary Guineans stayed indoors and most opposition political leaders kept quiet. However, when it became clear that the coup leaders were indeed in control, there were jubilations throughout the country and by Guinean nationals living abroad, welcoming the new rulers and saluting their move. This was in contrast to the outpour of condemnations coming from the international community, particularly the African Union (AU).
Eventually, in a communiqué issued on 29 December, the Peace and Security Council (PSC) of the AU decided to suspend Guinea from the continental body until the return of the country to constitutional order.
Given the circumstances that surrounded it, the military takeover presented a dilemma to both Guinea and those actors of the international community – particularly the AU – that care for a) good governance and b) respect of constitutional order in Africa.
On the one hand, the country had an ‘elected’ National Assembly and a Constitution that entrusted the interim presidency of the country to the Speaker of Parliament in the event of the death of the Head of State. According to Article 34 of the Constitution, once sworn in as caretaker president, the Speaker of Parliament should organise new presidential elections within 50 days.
On the other hand, almost all the Guineans and many other observers agreed that the claims of the military leaders about the total failure of the ousted regime and state institutions to respond to the needs of the masses were valid. While hardly no one is totally without positive achievements, and Conté had a few to his credit, the 24 years of his rule were mainly characterised by nepotism, large scale corruption, total disregard of the rule of law and a clear lack of vision and/or political will to address the wishes and needs of the masses.
It is clear that the beneficiary of the strict respect of the constitutional arrangement in this case of a coup – the Speaker of Parliament - was not known for his respect for democratic principles. He would have most likely exploited a weakness in the Constitution to present himself as a candidate and fraudulently steal the elections he was supposed to organise. The Constitution does not explicitly bar him from being a candidate. And given his track record in Guinean politics, his presidency would have most likely been a continuation of the same disorder and scandalous practices that distinguished Conté’s regime.
The mandate of the National Assembly had expired in June 2007 and the delays in organising new elections to renew the mandate of the legislature were, according to some commentators, the result of a deliberate stratagem of the Speaker of Parliament to prolong his stay in that position, hoping that the critically ill Lansana Conté might die before the new elections. This would result in him taking over power. As his wish nearly came to pass, so true is this observation about his tactics.
There was therefore a legal and a political dimension to the situation facing the country. The position of the AU is arguably a legal one, the pan-African body having interpreted this as a situation that fits the definition of “unconstitutional change” according to the Lome Declaration of July 2000. There were, however, some question marks about the constitutional legality and popular legitimacy of the National Assembly - a fact that has led some commentators to criticise the position of the AU.
The question is whether the alleged disingenuous tactics of the Speaker of Parliament were sufficient to make the National Assembly illegal according to the Constitution? This does not seem to be evident. In the absence of an explicit stipulation in the Constitution with regard to the legal status of the incumbent Assembly before the election of a new one, the ordinary assumption would be that the mandate of the Assembly is still running until such time when a new legislature has been elected. Indeed, this seems to have been the practice until the coup, for when legislative elections were postponed in July 2007 to take place in November or December 2008 and then in 2009, all the political parties went along with this proposal, even though some expressed unhappiness about the situation. One could therefore argue that the principled position of the AU is justified from a legal perspective.
But is the position of the AU against the wishes of the Guinean people who deserve better governance that they could not hope to get from a continuation of the Conté regime? Is it blind to the political realities on the ground in Guinea? This does not seem to be the case, unless one establishes that the wishes of the Guinean people are indeed a desire to live under military rule. If this is not the case and is their jubilation following the coup was only triggered by the end of the Conté era and by the real possibility that the military takeover will lead to the establishment of a constitutional order in the country, then a proper reading of the aforementioned Communiqué of the PSC shows that there is no clash between the AU and the Guinean people.
As some wars might be ‘just’, one would be justified to argue that there are at times “good coups”. But it must be acknowledged that the stamp of “goodness” is only put on coups whose leaders have left power having respected the good promises they made when they seized power. The Guinean coup leaders are still in power and there is no guarantee that they will strictly stick to their good intentions to organise elections. Many people seem reassured, however, arguing that the national and international contexts have dramatically changed in a way that the officers cannot cling onto power for long. Indeed, but isn’t the stance of the AU part of this changed international context?
The PSC noted in its communiqué that they would work with the new authorities, in collaboration with the regional body, ECOWAS, to ensure the rapid return to constitutional order. As per the Lomé Declaration, the next six months – during which Guinea stands suspended from the AU – shall be used by the continental body to ascertain the intentions of the CNDD regarding the restoration of the constitutional order. And fortunately, the new rulers of Guinea seem mindful of this and sincere in their undertakings.
As they promised, they have appointed a well-respected civilian Prime Minister to form a transitional government tasked with organising free and credible elections as soon as possible. Both the CNDD and the new Prime Minister have publicly declared that they will not seek to run for presidency. The Prime Minister even went further to state that he would sack any member of his transitional government who shows bias to any political party. If they honour these undertakings and peacefully leave power after the “swift” transparent election of a legitimate government, there will be no reason for any further action by the international community and the military coup of 23 December 2008 will have been a blessing for Guinea.
Issaka K. Souaré, African Security Analysis Programme, ISS Tshwane (Pretoria) office
