Mini-documentary [by Jesse Freeston] on the critical Honduran journalists that have watched 15 colleagues assassinated in 19 months under the Lobo regime, a government Barack Obama praises for its “strong commitment to democracy.”
The following photograph taken by opednews.com shows a confrontation in the lobby of the National Air and Space Museum between two individuals and an officer shortly before video shows officers with the Museum’s security forces rush outside indiscriminately pepper-spraying numerous individuals.
It appears that one of the two in the confrontation with the security officer is Patrick Howley, Assistant Editor of The American Spectator. [See the following photograph in which Howley's Facebook Profile Photo is side-by-side with the person pictured at the Air and Space Museum]
Immediately after the incident began hitting the newswires Howley published a “Breaking News” story with The American Spectator online in which he reveals that he had consciously infiltrated the group on Friday with the intent to discredit the movement. He states that “as far as anyone knew I was part of this cause — a cause that I had infiltrated the day before in order to mock and undermine in the pages of The American Spectator — and I wasn’t giving up before I had my story.”
According to Howley’s story he joined the group in its march toward the Air and Space Museum but the protesters on the march were unwilling to be confrontational. He states “they lack the nerve to confront authority. From estimates within the protest, only ten people were pepper-sprayed, and as far as I could tell I was the only one who got inside.”
He claims that upon arrival at the Museum the group of approximately one hundred protesters split into two factions with the smaller of the two “rushing the doors,” the majority “staying behind.” Howley then admits in his piece that he snuck past the guard at the first entrance in order to “infiltrate” the building and then confronted another guard. He then “sprinted toward the door” at which time he was first hit with pepper-spray.
As he describes his next actions “I forced myself into the doors and sprinted blindly across the floor of the Air and Space Museum, drawing the attention of hundreds of stunned khaki-clad tourists (some of whom began snapping off disposable-camera portraits of me).”
Fully inside, despite the orders of the security guards that the Museum was closed to the public, Howley made his way upstairs – to the location where a banner was unfurled protesting the Museum’s exhibit of unmanned drone weapons.
“I strained to glance behind me at the dozens of protesters I was sure were backing me up, and then I got hit again, this time with a cold realization: I was the only one who had made it through the doors. As two guards pointed at me and started running, I dodged a circle of gawking old housewives and bolted upstairs.”
He then found himself “stumbling around aircraft displays with just enough vision to keep tabs on my uniformed pursuers. “The museum is now closed!” screamed one of the guards as alarms sounded. “Everyone make your way to the exits immediately!” Using my jacket to cover my face — which I could feel swelling to Elephant Man proportions — I ducked through the confused tourists and raced out the exit. “Hey, you!” shouted a female guard reaching for my arm. “Get back here!” But I was already down the steps and out of sight.”
Howley refers to the Museum as “the scene of my crime.” In light of his detailed description of his activities today the fact that they clearly document the commission of the crime of trespassing on federal property, if not the intent to incite a riot there, these admissions should not be taken lightly or ignored. As a result of Howley’s activities a large number of people were subjected to pepper-spray attacks including journalists and tourists who had nothing to do with the protest. Given the negative light that the press is attempting to spin this incident with regard to the ongoing occupations, from Wall Street and D.C. and now spreading to Main Streets across the country, the presence and admitted activities of this self-proclaimed agent provacateur should be brought to the attention of federal law enforcement officials.
It is highly likely that the events that occurred would not have taken the turn they did if it were not for Howley’s admitted adventure in an effort to discredit the Occupy movement. So before the public, the media, and officials turn their attention negatively towards the protests and the protesters there needs to be a critical eye turned on the role of the American Spectator and the role played in these events by its editorial staff. If arrests were made at this incident, and even if none were, the admissions of Howley published brazenly in the pages of his Conservative magazine and bragged about on his Facebook page should lead to an official investigation into his role and that of his employer in the events in Washington D.C. today and should be seen as at least part of the causal nexus that led to the inappropriate use of force that along with Howley negatively affected many who were innocent of any crime other than being at the wrong place at the wrong time.
Ironically Howley concludes the story of his adventure mocking the lack of courage of the protesters, who he admitted did not seek – as he did – to confront the authorities, by praising the courage of the guards who twice pepper-sprayed him.
“As I scrambled away from the scene of my crime, a police officer outside the museum gates pointed at my eyes, puffed out of his chest, and shouted: “Yeah, that’s right. That’s right.” He was proud that I had been pepper-sprayed, and, oddly, so was I. I deserved to get a face full of high-grade pepper, and the guards who sprayed me acted with more courage than I saw from any of the protesters. If you’re looking for something to commend these days in America, start with those guards.”
The admissions of Patrick Howley, published in The American Spectator for all to see, require those across the country, both the public and its officials, to take a closer and more critical look at today’s event’s in the Nation’s capital. Who was really to blame for the chaos and disruption of a Federal Museum? Who should be held responsible for those who were harmed in the melee that took place after Howley admits he defied the orders of the legal authorities and stormed into the building? And how should the story of today’s events unfold in the Nation’s media over the next several days?
This past weekend, the audience in attendance at the Rock in Rio festival in Brazil were treated to a very special rendition of Stevie Wonder‘s classic ”Superstition,” performed by the iconic signer himself and the Grammy Award nominated incredibly talented singer/songwriter and performer Janelle Monae. The Southern Belle joined Stevie on stage at his piano to perform the timeless song, which originally featured on Stevie’sTalking Book long player, released back in 1972. I love this song…
Rapper Talib Kweli did indeed head down to Zuccotti Park last night to show solidarity with and perform songs for Occupy Wall Street protesters. To the delight of weary protesters, Kweli performed a capella version of new song "Distractions" as well as Black Star classic "Thieves In The Night." Below, you can see video of both performances, as well as a call-and-response with the crowd during which Kweli commends protesters: "For the people who are sleeping here, you inspire us. If you are inspired by them, make it grow."
The full call-and-response (mic check) was: "I'm at a loss for words. But even me being at a loss for words, is amplified. They want to know what the end game is? This is the endgame. You doing your job, everybody here with a camera, everybody here with a camera, everybody here with a smartphone, everybody here with a voice. Do your job, and spread the word. For the people who are sleeping here, you inspire us. If you are inspired by them, make it grow. This is the endgame. It's about growth now. We have to grow. And that's the point. I love y'all."
Kweli, who was visiting Zuccotti Park for the first time but has tweeted in solidarity with OWS several times, also told the Voice, "This is the most American thing I've seen in my lifetime. I had to come down and see it for myself, so I could tell everyone about it."
Kweli also posted the picture below on his Twitter, with the message, "Here with the 99% #occupywallstreet.”
Silverfish Review Press sponsors the Gerald Cable Book Award. This prize is awarded annually to a book length manuscript of original poetry by an author who has not yet published a full-length collection. There are no restrictions on the kind of poetry or subject matter; translations are not acceptable.
The winner will receive $1000, publication, and 25 copies of the book. The winner will be announced in March 2012.
Final judge to be announced.
Entries must be postmarked by October 15, 2011
Entries may be submitted by e-mail
Submission Guidelines:
Entries must be postmarked by October 15, 2011
A $25.00 reading fee must accompany the manuscript. Please make checks payable to Silverfish Review Press
Manuscripts should be at least 48 pages in length. Clean photo copies are acceptable. The poet's name should not appear on the manuscript. Include a separate title page with author's name, address and phone number
Poems may have appeared in periodicals, chapbooks or anthologies, but should be acknowledged. No changes in the manuscript will be considered after submission
Manuscripts will not be returned. Be sure to keep a copy of your work. Each entry must include an SASE for notification of the contest results. For acknowledgement of receipt of manuscript, include a stamped, self-addressed postcard
Simultaneous submissions are acceptable. Notify SRP immediately if your manuscript is accepted for publication elsewhere
All entrants will receive a copy of the winning book.
We will accept e-mail submissions. Files in Word, Plain Text, or Rich Text should be sent to: sfrpress@earthlink.net. Reading fees can be paid online using PayPal or by snail mail. E-mail submissions are not required to send an SASE for contest results; e-mail entrants will be notified of the winner by e-mail. This is a chance for poets to save on paper, printing or photocopying, and mailing costs.
When making a reading fee payment through Paypal, include the author's name in the box labeled "Manuscript Author's Name" on the "Review Your Payment" page. Before mailing your manuscript to Silverfish, write the date and amount of your Paypal payment on the cover sheet so that we can match the payment to your manuscript.
CLMP Contest Code of Ethics
CLMP's community of independent literary publishers believe that ethical contests serve our shared goal: to connect writers and readers by publishing exceptional writing. We believe that intent to act ethically, clarity of guidelines, and transparency of process form the foundation of an ethical contest.
To that end, we agree to 1) conduct our contests as ethically as possible and to address any unethical behavior on the part of our readers, judges, or editors; 2) to provide clear and specific contest guidelines -- defining conflict of interest for all parties involved; and 3) to make the mechanics of our selection process available to the public.
This Code recognizes that different contest models produce different results, but that each model can be run ethically. We have adopted this Code to reinforce our integrity and dedication as a publishing community and to ensure that our contests contribute to a vibrant literary heritage.
Submit manuscripts to:
Silverfish Review Press Gerald Cable Book Award P.O. Box 3541 Eugene, OR 97403
Each year So to Speak offers a fiction, nonfiction, and poetry contest. Past judges have included Claudia Emerson, Jennifer Lauck, Marie Howe, Sharon Mehdi, and Lucy Corin.
Winners in poetry, fiction, and nonfiction are awarded $500, 2 complimentary issues, and publication in the journal. The three finalists are also featured in the journal.
Fall 2011 Short Fiction Contest
We will begin reading for our Fall 2011 Short Fiction Contest January 1, 2011. To enter, submit a manuscripts not exceeding 4,500 words (with double-spaced and numbered pages) and a cover letter through our Submission Manager. The reading fee is $15 and can be paid through our Submission Manager.
All entrants will receive a free copy of our Spring 2011 issue.
Deadline: March 15, 2011
Judge: T. Greenwood
T. Greenwood is the author of six novels. She has received grants from the Sherwood Anderson Foundation, the Christopher Isherwood Foundation, the National Endowment for the Arts, and, most recently, the Maryland State Arts Council. Two Rivers was named Best General Fiction Book at the San Diego Book Awards last year. Four of her novels have been BookSense76/IndieBound picks; This Glittering World is a January 2011 selection. She teaches creative writing at both UCSD’s Extension Program and at The Ink Spot. She and her husband, Patrick, live in San Diego, CA with their two daughters. She is also an aspiring photographer. More information on T. Greenwood can be found at her website: http://www.tgreenwood.com and her blogs: http://www.mermama.blogspot.com andhttp://www.ephemerafiles.blogspot.com
Spring 2012 Poetry Contest
To enter, submit up to 5 poems (not to exceed 10 pages) and a cover letter, through our Submission Manager. The reading fee is $15 and can be paid through our Submission Manager.
All entrants will receive a free copy of our Spring 2011 issue.
Submissions are invited between Aug. 1 and Oct. 15, 2011 for the Dogwood Literary Prizes, a contest sponsored by Dogwood: A Journal of Poetry and Prose. Dogwood, the national annual literary magazine of Fairfield University, is resuming publication and its annual contest with new editor Sonya Huber. First place winners in poetry, fiction, and creative nonfiction will each be awarded $500.
Dogwood has published poets such as Elton Glaser, Allison Joseph, Virgil Suarez, and Joshua Mehigan, and fiction writers such as Eric Gabriel Lehman, Nalini Jones, Tom Hazuka, and Gina Ochsner. Judges for the competition have included former U.S. Poet Laureate Robert Pinsky, NEA Chairman Dana Gioia, and Oprah book club author A. Manette Ansay. Work from Dogwood has been selected for The Pushcart Prize Anthology and has been featured on Verse Daily.
The judges for this year’s contest are Ira Sukrungruang in prose (fiction and creative nonfiction) and Katherine Riegel in poetry.
Katherine Riegel’s first book of poetry is Castaway (FutureCycle Press 2010). Her poems and essays have appeared in numerous journals, including Crazyhorse, the Cream City Review, and Terrain.org. She is co-founder and poetry editor for the independent online journal Sweet: A Literary Confection. She teaches at the University of South Florida and lives in Brandon. Her website is www.katherineriegel.com. Ira Sukrungruang is the author of Talk Thai: The Adventures of Buddhist Boy. His work has appeared in many literary journals, including North American Review, Creative Nonfiction, and The Sun. He teaches in the MFA program at the University of South Florida. His website is www.sukrungruang.com. Submission Guidelines:
Submit fiction or nonfiction up to 25 pages or three poems (max ten pages) to the contest using the online submission manager: http://dogwood.submishmash.com/submit
The contest entry fee of $10 will include a free copy of Dogwood with the winning entries and finalists. Please pay for the contest entry using the online submission manager payment page.
Please double space and use 12-point font.
Include a brief bio in the cover letter field on the submission manager, but no name should appear on the mss.
Simultaneous submissions allowed if Dogwood is notified of acceptance elsewhere.
Previously published work is not eligible.
Deadline: October 15, 2011
All contest entries meeting these requirements will be considered for publication in Spring 2012 Issue of Dogwood along with selected non-contest submissions. Non-contest submissions: please email a copy of your work following the above guidelines to: dogwoodliterary@gmail.com. Only contest entries will be accepted through submishmash, and contest entries will be given priority for publication. For more information, please see http://dogwoodliterary.tumblr.com/ or email shuber@fairfield.edu.
EVERYDAY SUNSHINE is a documentary about the band Fishbone, musical pioneers who have been rocking on the margins of pop culture for the past 25 years. From the streets of South-Central Los Angeles and the competitive Hollywood music scene of the 1980's, the band rose to prominence, only to fall apart when on the verge of "making it."Laurence Fishburne narrates EVERYDAY SUNSHINE, an entertaining cinematic journey into the personal lives of this unique Black rock band, an untold story of fiercely individual artists in their quest to reclaim their musical legacy while debunking the myths of young Black men from urban America. Highlighting the parallel journeys of a band and their city, EVERYDAY SUNSHINE explores the personal and cultural forces that gave rise to California's legendary Black punk sons that continue to defy categories and expectations.At the heart of the film's story is lead singer Angelo Moore and bassist Norwood Fisher who show how they keep the band rolling, out of pride, desperation and love for their art. To overcome money woes, family strife, and the strain of being aging Punk rockers on the road, Norwood and Angelo are challenged to re-invent themselves in the face of dysfunction and ghosts from a painful past.fishbonedocumentary.com
Angelo Moore and Norwood Fisher as seen in "Everyday Sunshine."
A Black Rock Band Struggling in a White Milieu
By ANDY WEBSTER
Published: October 6, 2011
On the heels of “Beats, Rhymes & Life,” Michael Rapaport’s documentary on the hip-hop ensemble A Tribe Called Quest, comes“Everyday Sunshine,” a fascinating account of another musical group’s rise and fall, here the Los Angeles ska-punk rockers Fishbone. Near-rise might be more accurate, as Fishbone, despite a reputation for breathless live performance (vividly apparent in fleeting clips), has never enjoyed the mainstream breakthrough of regional peers like the Red Hot Chili Peppers.
Fishbone was an anomaly from the start: though its members grew up listening to Parliament Funkadelic, they fell in with the Southern California punk-rock scene of the early 1980s. Anchored by the furious bass playing of Norwood Fisher and the stage-diving charisma of its singer-saxophonist, Angelo Moore, the group was a black rock band in a white milieu. Columbia Records, its first label, had no idea how to classify it. Few bands have been so betrayed in the studio: no Fishbone single conquered the charts. Occupational hazards — ego battles, alcohol abuse — took a toll, as did the loss of a lead guitarist, Kendall Jones, to a Christian sect in 1993.
Today Mr. Fisher and Mr. Moore are all who remain of the original lineup, enduring a punishing touring schedule in 500-seat clubs. But the group’s influence — attested to by members of No Doubt, the Peppers and Jane’s Addiction, among many others — is indisputable.
In August (17-21, 2011), La Ceiba, Honduras, hosted the first ever World Summit of Afro-Descendants—a gathering of over 1,000 people from 44 countries in the Americas, Africa, Europe, and Asia. The Organización de Desarrollo Étnico Comunitario and the International Civil Society Committee organized the event to commemorate the United Nations and Organization of American States’ International Year for People of African Descent.
The cultural and institutional invisibility of the Afro-Descendant population in the Americas was an overarching theme of the summit. This is a particular challenge in countries where black identity does not form part of the collective national identity. If a state does not know how many, where, and in what condition Afro-Descendants live, how can it formulate a public policy agenda to serve these communities? The violence against women was also adressed. Afro-Descendant women face unequal access to health care, employment and education. For example, Afro-Descendant women in Brazil are given less anesthesia during childbirth, compared to non-black Brazilians. This, they argue, constitutes a form of violence against women: a systematic denial of equal opportunity and access to state resources and services.
The group The Lo Frequency made some footage and interviews from the opening ceremony of the World Summit of African Descendants. The interviews are with the Carifuna people.
Because Carifuna people are in the previous video, this video will explain some of the images and signs.
And a video about the 'Primere cumbra mundial de afrodescendiente'
A Libyan rebel walks past a placard that reads "Arrest the Dictator". (Marwan Naamani/AFP/Getty Images)
Ghanaian economist George Ayittey recently spoke at the Oslo Freedom Forum in Norway about how to get rid of dictators, a process already underway in north Africa.
A chat he had with Thor Halvorssen, President of the Human Rights Foundation, is food for thought.
Thor Halvorssen: How pervasive is dictatorship in Africa today?
George Ayittey: Africa has more dictators per capita than any other continent. In 1990, only four out of the 54 African countries were democratic; today, 21 years later, it is only 15.
Fewer than ten can be deemed economic success stories and a free media exists in only ten African countries. Some people call this progress…. that’s not what I would call it.
TH: That means at least 39 countries in Africa are still ruled by dictators.
GA: And we are fed up. Fed up! Angry Africans are fed up and are taking the heat to them. Dictators cause the world’s worst problems: all the collapsed states, and all the devastated economies.
All the vapid cases of corruption, grand theft, and naked plunder of the treasury are caused by dictators, leaving in their wake trails of wanton destruction, horrendous carnage and human debris.
But guess who’s always cleaning up their mess?
For decades, the West has spent trillions of dollars trying to persuade, cajole, and even bribe them to reform their abominable political and economic systems. The West has even tried appeasement in their rapprochement. Enough!
TH: But shouldn’t the West pressure dictators with other measures like cutting off IMF loans and international aid packages and threaten to stop recognizing them diplomatically?
GA: The West has to understand that dictators never have and never will be interested in reform. They are stone deaf and impervious to reason. Period.
Dictators are allergic to reform, and they are cunning survivors. They will do whatever it takes to preserve their power and wealth, no matter how much blood ends up on their hands. They are master deceivers and talented manipulators who cannot be trusted to change.
TH: What kind of resources do they need in order to maintain their survival? Surely the loss of Western funding would hinder them?
GA: After a mere four-and-a-half years in office, the late dictator of Nigeria, Sani Abacha, managed to accumulate a personal fortune of 5 billion dollars. Omar Al-Bashir has siphoned 7 billion out of Sudan. And Hosni Mubarak of Egypt managed to accumulate a personal fortune of 40 billion dollars! All stolen from their own people.
Let me put that into perspective. The net worth of all U.S. presidents, 43 of them, from Washington to Obama, amounted to 2.7 billion. That means that Africa’s kamikaze bandits each stole more than the net worth of all U.S. presidents and then more.
TH: How does a human rights activist fight against 40 billion dollars of bribe money?
GA: This is exactly what happened in Egypt and Tunisia. Fed up with their corrupt antics, angry street demonstrators started pushing dictators out: Ben Ali fled, Mubarak was shoved aside, and more coconuts will tumble
But caution: Noisy rah-rah street demonstrations alone are not enough.
Three cardinal principles must be followed for a popular revolution to succeed. First, a united coalition of opposition forces is essential. Second, the dictator’s modus operandi—strengths and weakness—must be studied in detail. Lastly, getting the sequence of reform right is crucial; there are several steps that must be followed precisely in order.
TH: The sequence you just described should perhaps be named Ayittey's law. By a “coalition” do you mean a political alliance? Wouldn’t that be difficult in most of these countries suffering under dictatorships or one-party rule?
GA: A small group of pro-democracy activists – call it an elders council -- is imperative to serve as the nerve center, plan strategically, and coordinate the activities of the various opposition groups, civil society groups and youth movements.
For example, The Gathering in Sudan in 1985, The Danube Circle in Hungary in 1988, Charter 77 in Czechoslovakia in 1989 and the Alliance for Change in Ghana in 1995, in which I participated. If the dictator schedules an election, the council must rope all political parties into an electoral alliance.
In 2010, dictators “won” elections because of a divided opposition field. For funding, the council should rely on its own diaspora community, not on Western donors.
TH: Why should reformers depend on their community as opposed to Western donors?
GA: Reform must start with intellectual freedom and freedom of the press. Reform must come from within—made by the people themselves, not by Western governments or financial institutions. Internally-initiated reform is far more sustainable and enduring. The self-immolation of Mohammed Bouazizi started the Arab Spring. His was the ultimate and extreme form of freedom of expression.
TH: Ok, so first a coalition, second we find the dictator’s weaknesses…
GA: The modus operandi of all dictators is essentially the same: Besides parliament, if there is one, they seize control of six key state institutions (the security forces, the media, the civil service, the judiciary, the electoral commission, and the central bank), pack them with their supporters, and debauch them to serve their interests.
To succeed, a popular revolution must wrestle control of at least one or more of these institutions out of the dictator’s clutches. The game was over for Ben Ali and Hosni Mubarak when the military refused to fire on civilians. Ditto in the Philippines in 1986 and Georgia in November 2003, where the security forces were charmed with roses (hence, the “Rose Revolution.”) Ukraine’s Orange revolution of November 2004 won the Supreme Court to its side and Pakistan’s Black Revolution of March 2007 had the full support of the judiciary.
Let me give you 3 more ways of toppling a dictator’s stronghold:
First, get the media out of their hands: create pirate radios, use social media. That’s what will unleash the reforms we all cherish so dearly, not Western sermons, sanctions, or appeasement.
Second, hit them with their own constitution. For example, Article 35 of China’s Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, press, assembly, and association. In Ghana, we used the Constitution and the courts to free the airwaves, leading to a proliferation of FM Radio stations, which were instrumental in ousting the regime in 2000.
Third, a dictator’s weakness is exploited by s-t-r-e-t-c-h-i-n-g its military geographically. Shut down the civil service and any military regime will collapse. It will not have enough soldiers to replace civil servants across the country; we saw this in Ghana in 1978 and Benin in 1989. We also saw the same thing this year, as street protests in Tunisia and Egypt erupted simultaneously in several cities and towns, straining security forces.
TH: But, that’s not the end, is it? Toppling the dictator is just the beginning…
GA: Getting rid of the dictator is only a first step in establishing a free society. The dictatorship must also be disassembled. We didn’t do this in Africa in the 1960’s. We removed the white colonialists and they were replaced by black neo-colonialists, Swiss bank socialists, crocodile liberalists, quack revolutionaries, and briefcase bandits.
Africans will tell you, we struggled very hard to remove one cockroach from power and the next rat came to do exactly the same thing. This is because we did not disassemble the dictatorship state.
To disassemble a dictatorship you have to do things in order and steps. This is like overhauling a vehicle where repairs must be made in order: you don’t fix the transmission when the battery is dead, nor do you install a new sound system when the battery is dead.
Disassembling a dictatorship requires first intellectual reform (a push for freedom of expression and the media); second, political reform (democratic pluralism and free and fair elections); third, constitutional reform (limiting the powers of the executive); fourth, institutional reform (independent judiciary, electoral commission, efficient civil service, and neutral and professional armed forces); and fifth, economic reform, or liberalization (free markets and free trade).
TH: What happens when revolutions don't follow this sequence in that order?
GA: Reversals of revolutions occurred in several countries because the reform process was out of sequence or haphazard. For example, premature economic liberalization—like the “shock therapy” in Poland, the Czech Republic, and Russia in the early 1990s—produced vampire capitalists.
The institutional reforms and legal framework needed to make economic liberalization succeed had not been undertaken. The nomenklatura remained firmly entrenched, frustrating reforms. A few (eight) oligarchs used inside knowledge and political connections to gobble up state assets at rock-bottom prices and became instant billionaires.
Most disastrous for Africa was economic liberalization ahead of all other types of reform—like the Washington Consensus. To be sure, economic liberalization engenders prosperity but dictators never level any playing field. They implement only those types of reforms that benefit themselves, their families, and their cronies.
Those African countries that pursued economic liberalization eventually failed the political test and imploded: Burkina Faso, Egypt, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Libya, Madagascar, Tunisia, and Zimbabwe. In Egypt, the street protesters who ousted Hosni Mubarak now seek to roll back his free-market reforms and hold its beneficiaries accountable.
And Ivory Coast, once described as an “economic miracle,” now lies in ruins. China currently faces this quandary. If it opens up politically, the Communist Party will be swept away; if it doesn’t, it may disintegrate like the former Soviet Union.
TH: So, in your speech at the Oslo Freedom Forum you will provide a roadmap on how to defeat a dictator in three principles and five steps.
GA: That’s right. Mikhail Gorbachev started with glasnost; Africa needs to start with blacknost.
After publishing Africa Betrayed (1992) andAfrica Unchained (2005), intellectual gadfly, Professor George B.N.Ayittey has crafted yet another masterpiece, Defeating Dictators: Fighting Tyranny in Africa and Around the World (2011) in which he adumbrates the deceptive habits of highly defective despotic regimes in Africa and beyond. Ayittey contends that a dictator is a dictator. He further points out that “The only good dictator is a dead one”(218). The crux of the argument in his book is that Africans and other people chaffing under the yoke of despotism should steer clear of confusing ideological with systemic dictatorship—dictatorship that emerges from faulty institutions and systems. Any political system that concentrates power in the hands of one person, he argues, will inevitably degenerate into a dictatorship. The culprit is the system—not ideology or culture.
Defeating Dictators is a vitriolic lampoon on abuse of power, electoral gerrymandering and rape of democracy in the developing world. Ayittey observes that “modern dictators come in different shades; races, skin colors and religions, and they profess various ideologies” (7). This notwithstanding, despots have a lot in common: they are leaders who are not chosen by their people and, therefore, do not represent the people’s aspirations. As opposition mounts against them, they refine their tactics and learn new tricks in an attempt to stem the tide of pro-democracy forces. Despotic governments are highly deceptive regimes that are recognizable from distinctive traits.
Unyielding grip on power is the hallmark of every dictator in Africa. Elections are farcical and always won by the despot. As Ayittey would have it, dictators “…fix the rules of the game and secure 90 percent of the vote all the time” (201). Dictators grow senile, and then they start to groom their sons, wives, and half-brothers to succeed them. African despots are notorious for these treasonous acts of insanity: Paul Biya of Cameroon, Abdoulaye Wade of Senegal, Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, Ben Ali of Tunisia, Colonel Qaddafi of Libya, Yoweri Museveni of Uganda, Idris Deby of Chad and more.
Dictators have the knack for looting the nation’s coffers. More often than not, the country is broke because the dictator and his henchmen have looted the treasury unashamedly and stashed their loot in foreign bank accounts—the safe haven is Switzerland. The dire consequence is that the country is saddled with a mountain of foreign debt. Ayittey laments the fact that “Paul Biya, the dictator of Cameroon, who has been in power for 29 years, has received a long series of loans—known as ‘Poverty Reduction Growth Facilities’— from the IMF” (181). When the same poor Cameroonians in whose names he had received the loans protested in 2008 against skyrocketing food prices and a constitutional amendment that was intended to extend Biya’s rule to 2018, Mr. Biya ordered his brutal security forces to fire live bullets at protesters.One hundred people died instantly. Ayittey notes that “many of the victims were apparently shot in the head at point-blank range…” (181).
Dictators are impervious to reason. The only voice a dictator listens to is his own voice. Political repression is an effective weapon in the hands of African despots. Opposition parties are either outlawed or accorded very little political leeway. Key opposition leaders are arrested, intimidated, hounded and even killed. Cowed into submission, some intellectuals in the opposition tend to switch camps. In other words, they become political prostitutes. Though highly educated with PhDs, a multitude of them have sold off their consciences, integrity and principles as they kowtow to the diktats of barbarous dictators. To borrow words from Ayittey again, “as prostitutes, they have partaken of the plunder, misrule and repression of their people” (185).
The pet aversion of all dictators is press freedom. Censorship is imposed; journalists, newspaper editors, and columnists are harassed and arrested for telling the truth. Newspapers, radio and television stations that are critical of the despot are shut down. Ayittey points out that “it is important to keep in mind that a despotic regime can always block or shut down a critical media outlet and that the remaining ones are often state controlled” (180). Although freedom of expression is guaranteed by Article 19 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, Article 9 of the Banjul Charter of Human and People’s rights, and the constitutions of many countries in Africa, this has not deterred Africa’s dictators from violating this fundamental human right of citizens. The reason for this state of affairs is simple: dictators love to hide their failures; they want to keep citizens and the international community in the dark about the heinous crimes they have committed and continue to commit. Free media exposes their lies, bloopers and gross incompetence. That explains why President Paul Biya of Cameroon took it upon himself to imprison Mr. Pius Njawe, owner of the Le Messager group of newspapers more than 100 times for reporting on corruption and other sensitive topics before his premature death at the age of 53 in a car accident near Norfolk in the United States not long ago.
The grim reality about all this is that despotism and tyranny have socio-economic ramifications. Autocracy depletes human conscience and dignity. It exacts a heavy toll on human and economic capital. Infrastructure such as telecommunications, roads, airports, bridges, schools, hospitals, and seaports begin to crumble because contracts are awarded by the despot to his cronies, close friends, and family members. Ayittey notes that “commercial properties of businessmen alleged to be ‘anti-government’ may be confiscated or seized for distribution to the poor masses in the name of social justice” (19). He further points out that such was the case in Zimbabwe, where the despotic regime of Robert Mugabe (in power for 29 years) organized ruthless thugs to grab white commercial farmlands.
In a similar vein, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela (in power for 10 years) seized rural estates, and factories, including some assets of Lorenzo Mendoza, Venezuela’s second wealthiest man, and of H.J. Heinz Co., the world’s largest ketchup maker. Such contempt of property rights undoubtedly scares off potential investors who nurse the fear that they may be the next victims in the hands of a predatory regime. Foreign investors have fled from Venezuela on account of Chavez’s dictatorial policies. Inane diktats and reckless mismanagement of state funds inevitably engender economic doldrums.
Africa is replete with tin god dictators whose deleterious governmental modus operandi has brought untold hardship upon their people. A handful of despots on the continent have inflicted misery, despair, hopelessness, and death on millions of citizens who have protested against tyrannical rule. Hundreds of thousands have been jailed. Women have been gang raped by security forces in open day light on account of their affiliation to opposition political parties (Guinea and DRC). Some more have fled their homelands to become refugees in foreign lands.
Dictatorial leaders are self-seeking and insensitive to the plight of the governed. They take over and subvert key state institutions (civil service, judiciary, media, etc) to serve their interests. They are poor at governance given that good governance entails not only cognitive wherewithal but also the ability to compromise and bargain successfully with a plethora of competing groups. They are terrible at economic management. Hence the demise of domestic industries.
Interestingly, Ayittey does not handle Africa’s political opposition parties with kid gloves. Although he does not paint the continent’s tyrants and the opposition with the same brush, he finds fault with the modus operandi of most political opposition parties struggling to unseat dictators in Africa. In his own words, “It takes an intelligent or smart opposition to make a democracy work”(4), not the rah-rah noisy type that simply chants ‘Biya must go!’ He maintains that dictators have triumphed mainly because the opposition is fragmented, lack focus and prone to squabbling.
All too often, opposition parties that set out to liberate their countries from tyranny win up selling out, fighting among themselves, and sowing seeds of discord. Some opposition leaders are themselves closet dictators, exhibiting the same dictatorial tendencies they so loudly denounce in the dictators they are eager to replace (164). Ayittey sounds a note of admonition to Africa’s opposition political parties: “No single individual or group by itself can effect political change. It takes a united opposition or alliance of democratic forces” (165). The prime objective of any bona fide opposition group or groups should be to get rid of the dictatorial regime. Once this task has been accomplished, the opposition can then establish a level political playing field. All other issues such as who the new president should be, what the new flag or national currency should look like are distractions; they are irrelevant and secondary. These issues are divisive and nothing delights a despotic leader more than a divided opposition. The opposition has to be conscious of the fact that the dictator may infiltrate their ranks by planting moles among them with the intention of destroying the opposition. Such moles, Ayittey suggests, “need to be tracked down and squashed” (181). A smart strategy would be to identify the props of the despotic regime and sever them methodically, one at a time.
Last but not least, to defeat a tyrant in an election, a coalition of opposition parties must field only one presidential candidate. Once a coalition of opposition forces has been cobbled together, the second imperative should be to lay down the rules of combat (168). The first rule is to know the enemy—the type of dictator (civilian or military), how he operates, his strengths and weaknesses. Then, it is incumbent on the oppositional coalition to devise effective counter-strategies and modalities for defeating the despotic leader. Most importantly, the language of the opposition must be devoid of zealotry, incensed ideology, ethnocentrism and elitism.
In a nutshell, at time when the entire world is agog with expectations about what the Arab spring portends for countless people gripped by stifling fear and apprehension under dictatorial regimes in Africa and around the world, Ayittey has produced a work that may fulfill the crucial function of a blueprint for oppositional militancy, a veritable modus operandi for undoing dictators in the contemporary world. Defeating Dictators is the handiwork of an academic virtuoso. The language is lucid and free of sophistry. This book is a treasure trove of information that deserves to be read meticulously by every student of Africa’s political economy. Students, researchers and casual readers would find Ayittey’s new brainwave a fascinating book to read.
Dr. Vakunta is professor of Modern Languages at the Department of Defense Language Institute, Monterey-California, USA.