Skip to main content

Will 2015 be a year of political change for Africa?

Will 2015 be a year of political change for Africa?


Analysis: African voters will voice their discontent in major elections in Nigeria, Burkina Faso

Ebola dominated the headlines about Africa in 2014, but while the Western media was caught up in hysteria, the key lesson of the outbreak was the dysfunctional state of health infrastructure in West Africa and the lack of a coordinated continental response. And, a new Cambridge University study suggests, policies imposed by the International Monetary Fund had led African governments to slash spending on the public health system, leaving them unable to hire and train sufficient staff to cope with the crisis.
But the picture wasn’t all gloomy. Nigeria, despite its dysfunction and corruption, impressed the world with a public health response that effectively contained EbolaAfrican musicians like Salif Keita and Amadou and Mariam released an Ebola song that delivered crucial information about how to prevent infection. For all the hype and bluster in U.S. media, it was local doctors and medical personnel that bore the brunt of the burden of fighting Ebola in Africa, while more direct medical assistance came from Cuba than from the United States.  
Nigeria, which claims to be Africa’s largest democracy and is now also the continent’s largest economy, was more effective in containing Ebola than in coping with the menace of Boko Haram. The extremist group’s abduction of more than 200 schoolgirls in May drew international attention, prompting promises of swift and decisive action by President Goodluck Jonathan.
Most of the girls were never returned, making Jonathan the target of vehement public criticism, but he is still expected to easily win February’s presidential election. Jonathan maintains solid support among Evangelical megachurches (a big factor in Nigerian politics), major media houses and local celebrities, while the weakness of civil society means he faces little opposition. His election opponent, Muhammedu Buhari, is a former military ruler from the 1980s with little support among Nigeria’s elites. Buhari’s erstwhile support for Sharia rule means he faces strong opposition in the south. (Turnout in the north will be lower because of the Boko Haram threat.)
Africa will see several other notable elections in 2015, beginning with Egypt’s parliamentary poll in March. With the Muslim Brotherhood and its associated political party still banned, any election will be easily won by parties allied with the military and President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi. No surprises are expected, either, in the April election in Sudan, where President Omar Al Bashir has been in power since 1989.
Burkina Faso’s November 2015 election is more significant – it marks the first time in the country’s history that the Burkinabé will get to choose their government. A youth-led uprising forced the dictator Blaise Compaoré to flee the country on Oct. 31, after 27 years in power, and he is reportedly in exile in Morocco.
Although it has no election scheduled, South Africa could unseat President Jacob Zuma next year. Tainted by allegations of corruption, Zuma is increasingly unpopular among the electorate and within his own party, the African National Congress (ANC). Zuma has been ordered by South Africa’s public protector to repay the state for $24 million in unauthorized renovations to a private property in his home province of Kwazulu-Natal. Meanwhile, the ANC under his stewardship has splintered in the face of challenges from the more left-wing Economic Freedom Front and a trade union-based United Front movement. But Zuma is a canny operator, and it’s not clear that his critics can muster a majority to oust him.
Uganda’s President Yoweri Museveni, who championed his country’s assaults on gay rights, is hoping to make 2015 the year that African leaders withdraw from the International Criminal Court (ICC). Of the 21 open cases before the court, all have Africans defendants. That does not sit well with many African leaders, who ask why Western politicians such as George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Tony Blair have not been brought to book by the ICC over the invasion of Iraq.
The ICC nevertheless provides an important, if flawed, bulwark against impunity for African leaders. The court’s recent decision to drop charges against Kenyan leader Uhuru Kenyatta could, paradoxically, strengthen the ICC’s legitimacy in African eyes by showing that the outcome of its proceedings is not predetermined. As University of Florida political scientist Oumar Ba argues, the Kenyatta case may spur a change in prosecutorial strategy, prompting the court to investigate specific human rights abuses in detail before deciding who to level charges against.  
The continent gets a break from public health and politics in January when the bi-annual Africa Cup of Nations kicks off, featuring some of the finest players in international soccer—most of whom are based in Europe. The tournament will be held in Equatorial Guinea after the original host, Morocco, withdrew over concerns that Western anxiety about Ebola could harm Morocco’s critically important tourism industry. Soccer enthusiasts will be watching closely to see whether Cote d’Ivoire’s “golden generation” — led by Didier Drogba and the Toure brothers – finally win lift the silverware that has long eluded them,  in a tournament that may be their swansong.
Finally, we can’t promise that 2015 will be the year that passes without some public figure referring to Africa as a country. 2014’s offenders include Vice President Joe Biden, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, aging rocker Steven Tyler, Arsenal manager Arsene WengerAustralian foreign minister Tanya Plibersek  and reporters and local authorities who used three Ebola-infected African countries as stand-ins for the whole continent. Just stop.
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/12/25/will-2015-be-a-yearofpoliticalchangeforafrica.html

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Pourquoi les sanctions américaines contre le Rwanda sont-elles si importantes ?

Pourquoi les sanctions américaines contre le Rwanda sont-elles si importantes ? Auteur : The African Rights Campaign. Londres, Royaume-Uni Publié en : mars 2026   Introduction Lorsqu'un gouvernement est accusé d'exécutions extrajudiciaires, de déplacements massifs, de violences sexuelles, de violations des droits de l'homme et du pillage systématique des ressources naturelles d'un pays voisin, la réponse diplomatique attendue est un démenti catégorique, étayé par des preuves. Le Rwanda ne l'a pas fait. Lorsque le département américain du Trésor a imposé des sanctions aux Forces de défense rwandaises (FDR) et à quatre de leurs commandants les plus haut placés, le 2 mars 2026, la porte-parole officielle de Kigali, Yolande Makolo, a délivré une déclaration que les analystes diplomatiques étudieront attentivement pour ce qu'elle omet conspicuement. Elle a dit que les sanctions étaient « injustes », qu'elles ciblaient « uniquement...

Le Rwanda au Mozambique : qui les a placés là, pourquoi ils ne peuvent pas rester et pourquoi la SADC doit les remplacer avant que les dégâts ne deviennent permanents

  Qui a placé le Rwanda là-bas, pourquoi la France refuse de le remplacer, comment le déploiement est devenu un bouclier contre les sanctions, et pourquoi la SADC doit agir avant que les dégâts ne deviennent permanents Mars 2026   Résumé exécutif Les sanctions occidentales contre les Forces de Défense du Rwanda (RDF), imposées par les États-Unis le 2 mars 2026 en vertu du Global Magnitsky Act et relayées par une pression croissante de l'Union européenne, ont mis à nu une contradiction stratégique de premier ordre. La même force militaire sanctionnée pour son soutien opérationnel direct au groupe rebelle M23 en République démocratique du Congo est simultanément le principal garant sécuritaire d'un projet de gaz naturel liquéfié (GNL) de 20 milliards de dollars exploité par le géant français TotalEnergies à Cabo Delgado, dans le nord du Mozambique. Cette analyse répond à trois questions interconnectées dont les réponses définissent ...

Why US Sanctions Against Rwanda Are So Important

Why US Sanctions Against Rwanda Are So Important Author: The African Rights Campaign. London, UK Published: March 2026   Introduction When a government is accused of extrajudicial killings, mass displacement, sexual violence, human rights abuses, and the systematic pillage of another country's mineral resources, the expected response in international diplomacy is an unequivocal denial backed by evidence. Rwanda did not do that. When the United States Department of the Treasury imposed sanctions on the Rwanda Defence Force (RDF) and four of its most senior commanders on 2 March 2026, Kigali's official spokesperson Yolande Makolo made a statement that diplomatic analysts will study carefully for what it conspicuously omitted. She said the sanctions were 'unjust,' that they targeted 'only one party to the peace process,' and that they 'misrepresent the reality and distort the facts.' Rwanda's government, described by Bloomb...

BBC News

Africanews

UNDP - Africa Job Vacancies

How We Made It In Africa – Insight into business in Africa

Migration Policy Institute