While the political focus in East Africa has been on Kenya’s very public troubles, a much more sinister situation is actually emerging in Tanzania.

Wednesday morning Tanzanian special police arrested Christopher Mtikila, a conservative Christian theologian, very public human rights activist, and unfortunately, a real righty politician who until now had little viable support.

Last year the Tanzanian government legitimized his political movement, the Democratic Party of Tanzania (DPT), by registering it as an official opposition that could stand for national elections this fall.

I guess they had second thoughts… twice. “Special police” arrived at Mtikila’s house at 7am Wednesday, and knocked politely at the door. His wife wouldn’t let them in, so they left. A little bit more than an hour later they returned with vengeance.

For three hours they ransacked his apartment, finally leaving with his computer. The affair has transformed a fringe politician into a national hero.

Trapped in the same dynamic that indecisive and oppressive regimes from Nixon to Mao found themselves in, the Tanzanians in power have now elevated a fringe movement to substantial prominence that risks shaking the country to its core.

From a distance Tanzanian politics has looked honky-dory. It’s one of the few countries in Africa where the country’s presidents (following the first, Julius Nyerere) never served more than two publicly elected terms. The transitions have always been peaceful.

But beneath this veneer of peaceful democracy is strict one-party control. Nyerere established the Chama Cha Mapinduzi (CCM) as the single political entity in the country. After the political collapse of the Cold War, CCM relented somewhat allowing ineffective opposition parties that never garnered much public support, but CCM always was — and still is — in complete charge.

Public presidents are beholding to retired presidents sitting quietly in the “presidium.” Like in China, age is power.

I’ve often wondered if savvy Americans like Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright really understood all this, and just didn’t let on. I’ve often wondered myself if this kind of top-down, near oppressive control is what emerging African democracies need. To a certain extent, it’s the (public) argument now going on in Kenya regarding their new constitution.

But it’s all coming apart now in Tanzania. The last thing Tanzania needs is a Newt Gingrich hero, but that’s what the indecisive Tanzanians-in-power have created with Rev. Christopher Mtikila.

Mtikila has been around for a very long time, sort of the Mike Huckabee of Tanzania. Born again apostolic, he’s campaigned tirelessly against the “unchristian” ways of the closely-held Tanzanian government. His views are not comfortable to most moderates. He’d like gays hanged and Sunday made a non-workday public holiday. He calls non-Christians “traitors.” Jailed more than two dozen times since the early 1970s.

Why on earth did the current Tanzanian regime suddenly legitimize him?

Times are changing. And for the better. I think the answer lies in Kenya, where real democracy is exploding through the streets. The internet, cell phones, blogs – you name it – young East Africans are on the march for greater transparency and democracy.

Kenya is handling it well. Tanzania has a lot to learn. And if it doesn’t soon, it may find that it’s oppressive politics flip from one heavy hand to another just as heavy, and maybe even less rational.

By Conor Godfrey

This weeks’ New Yorker featured a special on the last days of the Guinean Junta entitled The End of A West African Dictatorship.

I felt as if author John Lee Anderson used the dark surrealism of Heart of Darkness with the edgy absurdity of Clockwork Orange a l’ African to capture the disintegration of Captain Dadis Camara’s grip on power.

In Anderson’s account, Junta leaders conspiratorially vie for power inside the labyrinth of the Alpha Yaya military compound in Conakry, while brown-brown (½ cocaine ½ gun-powder) snorting soldiers patrol the streets in flat-beds fitted with 50. Caliber machine guns.

Implausible images of Junta leader Dadis Camara on horseback adorn this Orwellian landscape like a Guinean big brother modeled on a victorious Roman general.

Reading this nightmarish tale reminded me of the yawning disconnect between Conakry and Guinea, and more generally, between some African capitals and the countries they purport to represent.

How do you reconcile the tranquil Guinean interior with the horrors Anderson describes?

You cannot. They belong to totally different worlds.

Any villager arriving in Conakry, or Dakar, or Bamako, (the three West African capitals in which I’ve spent significant time) would notice certain differences between the capital and the interior immediately:

The prevalence of French, the partial electricity, the traffic, the multitudes of young people, the police and military presence, and the cell phone coverage would all make the capital a strange place for the average West African.

But the differences that create the deeper disconnect between rural and urban require a more discerning eye.

Capital Cities tend to contain large numbers of politicized young people.

These young people are often unemployed, more educated then their peers, and in constant contact with the outside world through the radio, television, and in contact with foreign NGO workers or tourists.

The presence of the State also becomes more noticeable and meddlesome.

Soldiers set up roadblocks, the haphazard enforcement of the rule of law burdens most while leaving the well-connected untouched, and state policies which are routinely ignored up country must be heeded for better or worse in the capital.

In The Berlin Conference Continues to Plague Africa 125 Years After the Fact, I talked about the artificiality of the African political map.

In the interior people, deal with this by ignoring rules issued from the capital, or the state government adapts to fit local realities.
(e.g. In my village, 90% of office holders came from families that held political power before the French colonial government nominally extended its writ to the sleepy village of Fataco.

Now those families have “official titles”, but nothing really changed.)

However in capital cities, the colonial powers grew deeper roots. Now their imposed system awkwardly competes for influence with more traditional levers of power like family, ethnic group, faith, etc…

I think these dynamics isolate capitals and those who live in them from the interior.

John Lee Anderson’s article describes a Guinea that most Guineans do not know or care exists; I wonder if the same is true for villagers in other parts of the continent.

Please feel free to comment!

By Conor Godfrey

Just as American and European governments have asked friends and allies to follow their lead in years past on issues of concern to the West, South Africa is now asking for the West to follow its lead on an issue near and dear to their hearts—Zimbabwe.

I find it hard to get a bead on affairs in Zimbabwe because the pendulum swings from disaster, to optimism, to nagging pessimism, and back faster than you can minimize Al-Jazeera and open up the BBC.

Two years ago, the country had a raging cholera epidemic, 230 million percent inflation, and risked becoming a failed state.

The power sharing agreement signed in 2008 pleased no one but stopped the country’s descent into chaos and offered a refreshing break from the monotony of Robert Mugabe’s 30 year reign.

Then the news turned bad again. Snags in the rather loathsome shotgun wedding between Mugabe’s ZANU-PF and Morgan Tsvangirai’s MDC threatened to derail progress.

But last week the news was good. Jacob Zuma’s shuttle diplomacy appeared to have finally paid off.

Mugabe’s Zimbabwe African ZANU-PF and Morgan Tsvangirai’s Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) agreed to implement a series of measures to break through the current diplomatic impasse. (Outstanding issues include unresolved disputes over gubernatorial appointees, sanctions, and the swearing in of MDC Agricultural Minister Roy Bennett)

This week the news is bad.

A member of ZANU-PF told the press that his party would not take the agreed steps until Western governments remove sanctions (mostly travel restrictions and an asset freeze on Mugabe and his top officials).

In recent days, this official claimed that he only reiterated the party’s past position, but it certainly seems that ZANU-PF will continue to play the part of the obstructionist.

This is maddening. Robert Mugabe is largely responsible for Zimbabwe’s current state of affairs.

His thugs intimidate opposition members, his policies deter investment, and his mere presence makes potential foreign donors think twice about getting involved.

Lifting sanctions on Mugabe and his family would taste awful, but pragmatism often does.

I realize that the withdrawal of protest-sanctions lends quasi-legitimacy to an obstructionist regime, seems like playing politics with human rights, and undermines the Western claim to “always stand on the side of freedom and human dignity”. (President Obama’s 2010 State of the Union)

It’s a distasteful business.

However, Western governments lack adequate leverage to follow another course.

South Africa on the other hand has both vested interests and powerful leverage.

Zimbabwe is an important exporter to South Africa as well as the biggest buyer of South African exports in the Southern African Development Community.

Furthermore, conflict, epidemics, and refugees do not respect state borders. For these reasons, South Africa would like its Northern neighbor to return to stability and prosperity as soon as possible.

If Jacob Zuma says that sanctions should be lifted, we should lift them.

If the U.S. and U.k. governments need to hold their nose while doing so to appease their domestic audience, so be it.

But they should get out of South Africa’s way.

This suggestion is open to the criticism that South Africa has yet to deliver. But neither have Western sanctions.

As the region’s economic and political powerhouse, South Africa has far more at stake than we do. The U.K and the U.S. should encourage the growth of South Africa as a regional power broker by trusting its government to act responsibly in the interest of stability and growth in Southern Africa.

By Conor Godfrey

This past week the International Criminal Court (ICC) added genocide to the charges currently pending against Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir.

This seemingly unenforceable addition has rekindled debate over the relevance of the ICC.

In March 2009, the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Mr. Bashir, to which the Sudanese president retorted, “Dissolve these documents in water and drink them.”

Even though the indictment severely curtailed Mr. Bashir’s travel schedule, few people believe that he will see his day in court

Al-Jazeera’s Riz Khan recently hosted chief ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo to discuss the relevance of the ICC and respond to criticisms that the ICC focuses its investigations on non-Western, specifically African, governments.

One listener from Kenya emailed Riz Khan with the following complaint worth reprinting in full:

“Why is the ICC’s name not changed to African Criminal Court (ACC)?

Apparently, the court only issues arrest warrants for African leaders who committed crimes, while the Western leaders are treated as if their gross human rights violations were not crimes.

Why is Ocampo not issuing an arrest warrant for Bush, Blair, or Israeli leaders?”

Mr. Ocampo’s response: “America is not part of the treaty.”

He could have rephrased that by saying—yes Mr. listener from Kenya, you are absolutely right.

And what about Israel’s three week war in the Gaza Strip?

Well, the ICC does not yet recognize the Palestinian territories as a state, and therefore legal obstacles must be cleared before taking action.

And of the 14 indictments so far, how many have been issued against African leaders? All 14.

Ignoring the complexity of the issue for the moment, you can see how easily opinion leaders in the non-Western world could frame the ICC as a Western weapon. The story practically tells itself.

The funding for the ICC also raises questions about its biases.

Given these gross inequalities, detractors say we should scrap the ICC. Wrong. America should sign up.

If the U.S. fears the ICC could launch politically motivated assaults on U.S. personnel, then they should invest heavily in the ICC process to ensure the court’s independence.

The American exceptionalism that dominated post-cold war thinking must evolve.

By subordinating national power to international norms, the Unites States plays a greater role in shaping those norms.

This will extend U.S. power and protect U.S. interests in the wake of unilateralism’s fall from grace.

The majority of reasons listed for the U.S. refusal to participate in the ICC as a member represents little more than a transparent attempt to remove the U.S. and U.S. personnel from the purview of international Justice.

Moreover, by more than 2 to 1, Americans favor participating in the ICC as a member. (Though admittedly 21% of American’s pleaded ignorance.)

The U.S. entry would revitalize the court and put its detractors on their heels. Many non-signatories would reevaluate their position, and the increased legitimacy of the court would make non-compliers less likely to support those indicted. As long as U.S. personnel, power, and resources remain on the sidelines the listener from Kenya will be right—we might as well call it the ACC.

By Conor Godfrey
In less than two weeks the Ugandan parliament will vote on one of the most virulent anti-gay bills in history. Ugandan Anti-Gay Bill 2009 mandates the death penalty for some homosexual acts and significant prison terms for people who fail to report homosexual activity to the authorities.

Mass rallies preceding the introduction of this legislation informed audiences that “[Homosexuality] is not a human right. It is not in-born. It is a behavior that is learned and it can be unlearned”.

Speakers also discussed the aims of homosexuals in Uganda; namely, “to defeat the marriage-based society and replace it with a culture of sexual promiscuity.”

If this sounds familiar—you are right! It is our very own hate-mongering A-team.

On the podium in Kampala were Americans like Scott Lively, author of such scientifically renowned literature as 7 Steps to Recruit-Proof Your Child [from homosexuality], and also the source of my favorite piece of detestable drivel—claiming that legalizing homosexuality would be akin to legalizing “molestation of children or having sex with animals.”

Wow. Read this page of Mr. Lively’s blog. I could not make the case against him better than he does.

While Scott Lively, Caleb Lee Brundidge, and Don Schmierer are currently trying to distance themselves from the more heinous clauses of the Ugandan Anti-Gay Bill, the fingerprints of the most intolerant currents in American religious thought are all over the proposal.

It turns out that religious extremist groups in the U.S. funnel millions of dollars into Uganda, and Kampala is a regular stop for some extremist evangelical groups when taking their show on the road. (See related reading at the end of this entry for more information on American evangelism in Africa)

These agents of intolerance tap into a deep well of anti-colonial sentiment by portraying homosexuality as a “foreign import”, promulgated by agents of an international gay movement. They simultaneously play on perennial fears of cultural subversion by describing the gay plot to recruit African youth.

Statements by Ugandan Minister of Ethics and Integrity reflect these fears: he says the proposed legislation will “protect the traditional family by prohibiting any form of sexual relations between persons of the same sex”.

Other commentators have portrayed homosexuality as un-African, and by extension, the Anti-Gay Bill as congruent with African values. This strikes me as dangerous hogwash.

Yes it is true: most African communities do not support homosexuality. An open homosexual relationship would render the participants unable to meet some of the reciprocal familial and communal obligations that structure life in many African communities (e.g. marrying, producing children).

However, this rabid homophobia that makes people scribble “Die Sodomite” on the walls in Kampala is down right un-African. I have never heard an African voice anything more extreme than a mild discomfort with homosexuality.

Parents in my village would sometimes scold young children for ‘playing’ impolitely, but never displayed the level of fear and hatred necessary for a gay witch-hunt.

Hate-mongering by American extremists elevated African homosexuality from a non-issue, practiced by some individuals in a private way, to a hate-fueled cause célèbre requiring mass rallies and draconian legislation.

This is not a condemnation of Christianity in Africa. People in the know consistently describe religious charities like Catholic Relief Services as among the best NGOs working on the continent.

I knew several missionary families in Guinea who treated their communities with respect and earned the right to engage their neighbors in a meaningful exchange of ideas on universal questions.

There is a role for pious Westerners on the continent—but this is most certainly not it.

Related Reading: Brief history of modern evangelism in Africa

Four audio recordings of Ugandans with different points of view on homosexuality.