The True Size of Africa

An interesting read from The Economist. Also see the comments at the end of the piece. "Africa is much bigger than it looks on most maps."

Stephen Keshi is Way Out of Line!

Stephen Keshi has so far been a fine coach for the Nigerian national football team and he has a legacy to protect. In the past he has called for African countries to employ African coaches rather than relying on foreign coaches. This is a sentiment that can be maintained without being racist. By adding racism to his nativist perspective he seems to be demonstrating the reverse side of all nativism - that they may be motivated by hatred for the other rather than a desire for internal excellence. FlourishingAfrica has in the past denounced racism against Africans around the world. Racism from Africans is also not to be tolerated. Stephen Keshi should be teaching kids how to play football rather than how to be racists.

America's Aid to Egypt is actually America's Aid to America



CBS News has today given further analysis of how the "aid" to Egypt is actually meant for America rather than for Egypt. It seems that cutting the aid would hurt America more than it would hurt Egypt. Such is the politics of aid.

Cocoa, Oil, and Development in Equatorial Guinea and Ghana

The Muslim Brotherhood and the Fake Rhetoric of Democracy

The unspeakable loss of lives in Egypt is deeply troubling. My sympathy and condolences go to those who have suffered this loss. However, I do not sympathize with the Muslim brotherhood who are now struggling to cast the current conflict as a conflict between military dictatorship and democracy. This crisis, if anything, was orchestrated by the dictatorship of the Muslim Brotherhood. After winning power in Egypt, they went to work clearing the ground for Sharia rule rather than working with all the stakeholders of the country to create a democratic future. The mantle of democracy which the Muslim Brotherhood is now claiming is a sham. The very essence of Muslim Brotherhood makes it anti-democratic - it claims Islam as the only legitimate rule. This is abominable!

The issue now seems to be a choice between two anti-democratic movements - the military and the Muslim Brotherhood. In this I will throw my lot with the military. The military is dictatorial and they kill their enemies, as we have just seen in Egypt and in many countries around the world. However, a profound difference between the military and the Muslim Brotherhood is that the Muslim Brotherhood rules in the name of God. The dictatorship of the military does not claim divine sanction and recent dictators generally do not claim to be ruling in the name of God. However, by ruling in the name of God, the Muslim Brotherhood does not only claim the body but it also claims the soul so that those who do not agree with them are also seen not to be in agreement with God. Thus, while the military only claims possession of the human body, the Muslim Brotherhood claims both the body and soul. While the dictatorship of the military is rooted in realpolitik, the dictatorship of the Muslim Brotherhood has metaphysical backing. That is what makes it very sinister. People who cannot live with others unless others become like them cannot claim the mantle of democracy. The Muslim Brotherhood has always been fighting and dying for something else and that thing is not democracy, rather, it is Islamic rule.

Strange Tales from the Arabian Nights

I am not quite sure where I heard this story but it seems to be from my primary school days in Cameroon. We were told that the story is one of the Tales from the Arabian Nights but I have not verified this information. This is how the story goes: A man had a camel and they were traveling in a very cold clime. When it was time to sleep, the man built a tent and slept in it and the camel stayed outside. The camel however began to complain of the cold outside. In order to relieve the effects of the cold, the camel begged to put just one of its feet in the tent so that the warmth generated in the tent may pass through its feet and warm its cold body outside. After initial hesitation, the man allowed the camel to put one of its feet in the tent. Then the camel said that its body will warm better if both of its feet were in the tent. Again, after some hesitation, the man allowed the camel to put both of its feet in the tent. You may see where this story is going. The camel asked for its head to be placed in the tent, and so on and so forth. In the end, the camel was in the tent and the man was outside.

This is not a perfect analogy but I think it could be used for the situation in Egypt. When the revolution started, the Muslim Brotherhood said it wanted democracy like everyone else. It did not want to lord it over all Egyptians, as Hosni Mubarak did, but rather to be part of a participatory democracy. It even said it would not field a candidate for the presidential elections. However, when the time for the elections came, it said it would field a candidate. It said it was looking for a participatory constitution but when the time came to draft a constitution, it pushed everyone out and pushed its agenda in. Initially, they seem to behave as if they did not want power. Now, they are dying in the streets to keep the power they had grabbed. Perhaps we should have known all along that a people who claim that "Islam is the answer" cannot share power with anybody. Strange tales are still being told by Arabian Nights.

How Electoral Malpractices in the United States Embolden Dictators Around the World

It seems to have been assumed that democratic elections could be carried out with as much transparency as possible. That was before 2000 when the United States appeared unsure about who had won the presidential elections that pitted George Bush against Al Gore. The winner, as we know, was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. Even during the 2000 presidential elections, there were long lines of people waiting to vote. It was said that some of them went back home without having the opportunity to vote. A similar thing happened in the last elections that pitted Barack Obama against Mitt Romney. Long lines of people were seen standing at polling stations and machinations were reported to have been afoot to prevent them from voting. The world was watching all this. If the United States, which prides itself as a paragon of democracy cannot conduct a good, transparent election, how is it possible for countries like Zimbabwe to conduct one?

And that question is the crux of the matter with respect to the just ended presidential elections in Zimbabwe. The opposition is crying foul, the ruling party is saying that everything went well. African observers are saying that no election is ever perfect. Britain and the United States are saying there were electoral irregularities. South Africa is congratulating Mr. Mugabe as winner. Now we seem to be working with degrees of electoral imperfections. Who is to say what a good election looks like when the United States is unable to conduct one? Any election is just as good as the other given that there is no perfect election. Is this politics or postmodernism coming to its own?