Afrogouvernance, by
Africa which is present only as puppet in all big associations and international organizations, still did not find even
its own way to be taken in hand. Without deferring more it is the instant to get organized and to invent its own way of survive without
the blessing of G20.
Who in this planet did not intend to speak about this old continent that Africa is! Even the most stupid
of this world knows the existence of Africa but how? According to the others wild live in Africa. It is not of their error if these
illiterates think in that way because, the assemblages of the documentaries which there are transmitted and introduced via their television
channels prove them.
What paradoxical in this entire scenario is that; how these people there between other one themselves who
broadcast documentaries showing the dirt the Africans, they rather prefer living in Africa than to them? « Go to meditate and to think
about the answer. »
Among the 53 African countries, leaving the North southward and from the east westward, each is bearing of
at least a wrist of treasures which fattens the strong chests of G20. G20 is composed of the countries of Europe and America and any
of them cannot disclaim this truth. They can very diplomatically speak about bilateral collaboration etc, which is nothing virtual
in all these relations except only reality; it is the economic interests favourable to G20 that encourage to them to collaborate in
great numbers with Africans countries. In a word these are the leonine contracts which interest them more than something else.
None
of G20, leaving their leader of thread whose the United States of America, can pretend to help Africans countries. Otherwise « who
helps which? »
Of course that there is nothing as anything, but in case of the Africans, « there is something as nothing. » In
all Africans countries, there is at least a big industry or company of G20 which exploits a mine or other black gold on the African
Soil. Is the opposite true?
For instance what company of Burkina Faso, Chad, R.D.Congo, Sudan, of Nigeria, from Ghana, from Ivory
Coast, from Somalia, from Ethiopia, from Rwanda etc, is established in Europe or in America with the intention of exploiting their
Coal, their oil or gold mine? If their industries established themselves in all Africa, it is for really the ease of the African population?
If that was the case, this old continent since long time would make fun of poverty.
Contracts with Africans countries producers
of oil, populations of these countries from which means there are by right, not in benefit even not of a percent only one of the income
of this product and the others speak about plans of the conflict against poverty in Africa at the time when their industries do not
cease exploiting treasures blocked up in the subsoil of Africans countries on the pretext of bilateral collaboration, on democracy,
on governance good.
If it is true, any African country has an industry of guns. But how they obtain it? G20 is really the big
in everything. They are the big in the manufacture of the every possible bloody weapon, but never had they beaten between them. All
that they make it is the globalization of the marketing of weapon. When the United States squabbles with the Russians about the limitation
of the nuclear weapon, if we can understand in other words and in the context of all over the world, they do not want the Russians
to sell more weapon than them! Their flourishing market it is Africa. Under the demagogy of democracy, they provide weapon all groups
which are able of protecting their financial interests, to destabilize the savings of Africans countries, in urge the Africans to
hate each other and in to kill each other savagely and afterwards they are accused of the criminals of the humanity. « Who in fact
are the true criminals? Africans or G20? »
To follow …
It is a temporary reduction of the production of a country…
Afrogouvernance, by Gustave Botela Lipo, September
1st 2009.
Given that the reduction of production, therefore they can definitely understand that the economic fast growth
of a country relates to the increase of production. These two factors are reckoned from the Gross domestic product (GDP) that is to
say all the treasures produced by the firms which are present on the national territory. To understand better, we shall use examples
below;
When a firm of American manufacture of tyres such as "Good Years" produces and sells tyres in Chad, in Morocco, etc.,
its production is therefore included in the GDP of Chad and Morocco. So every year, if there is increase of production, it is what
they call economic fast growth. Growth can be slow that is to say less strong than envisaged, they speak while it "decelerated" or
"stagnates". But otherwise, that is to say production diminishes, they speak about recession. Any instantaneous reduction of production
does not mean recession straightaway. According to the offices of Statistics, the term recession is used when production diminishes
during two successive quarters. Every well organized country has its own office of Statistics and the Economic researches which is
in charge of this counting.
Recession is not therefore a common demonstration in the economy of a country. For instance there
is a weak growth of less than 3 % a year in a country. This weak growth will have of direct repercussions on economy and finances
of the State: when growth goes down, unemployment augments and government finances deteriorate since fiscal receipts linked to activity
diminish. In spite of this weakness of growth, production does not stop and really continues augmenting.
The office of Statistics
calculates the phased growth divided by quarter. So for instance in the second quarter 2009, the GDP postponed 0, 4 % this office
published its predictions for the rest of the year:-0,1 % per third quarter and fourth quarter. In the strict sense term, country
being discussed therefore entered recession in the third quarter (it means two successive quarters of fall). As they can determine
it, this detachment is so trifling in the third quarter, as the office of Statistics will prefer speaking about growth which stalls.
Reasons linked to the reduction of production are numerous: slowing down of the investment of firms; fall of the spending power
in third and fourth quarters. At this instant they say that all motors of growth therefore have broken down: internal request as worldwide
request slowing down of which is going to penalize the exports of the country. Since then, economic activity stands back. It is recession.
It
is important and useful at this instant of planetary mutation, to clarify and in bare democratic paradox finally that the citizens
of this world that we live can understand more or less the connotation, confusion, mystery and reality of what is being supposed to
be a true democracy.
All philosophers and particularly those of lights had concluded from it that: « Democracy he am nicest of
regimes, but can apply only to small cities. » It is by the systematic transformation of democratic concept that the virtuoso will
deliver democracy of revolutions American and French of the past centuries.
Marvel being discussed is only the assemblage of
certain scattered but known principles. Firstly - The democratic principle which comes from the following slogan: « The people are
sovereign. » - the second - The principle of "representation", where from it is the people who chooses representatives - The third
- The principle of the "majority", which gives to understand that the possessors of the majority govern the country and respecting
minority.
So, with this practically unforeseen clever blend as is born in democracy and updating with these incorporated pure
principles of the unclean laws of political liberalism that is to say, disjunction and the limitation of powers, and all measures
which accompany it.
In summary, democracy makes parade his under the form which we indicate him according to the three principles
above. Therefore by materializing in a representative system, characterized by the break of powers according to the capricious modalities
going of American Presidentialism up to African totalitarianism.
In other words, the term democracy that we live today is a hybrid
amalgam made the democracy which implies: « Vote in universal suffrage (direct or indirect), Parliament (senators and deputies or
representatives) etc », and of elements which in themselves have nothing democratic or that can even be considered as anti-democratic
because, they do not have other avidity than to restrict popular power and to exploit thoroughly all human and natural resources this
popular power of which dispose.
Let us be more concrete; ban to acknowledge in a majority to legislate according to certain modalities,
for instance in cases which occur in the most part of the countries in Africa and elsewhere in other developing countries, rigged
elections, which deprive the popular power of its rights legitimate to choose their representatives legally.
By being based in
the balance sheet of the expansion of democracy such as played almost everywhere in Occident members of the OECD for instance, differs
from a distance from what is played in Africa. However democracy rests on a double post. They have first the popular which brings
him legitimacy and constitutionalist which envelops popular power in as mixed restrictions as numerous.
Especially in this third millennium, the paradox of democracy is only becoming steady. At no instant of the history of the humanity, the slogan of democracy was also raised, as universal reference. But especially under barriers in direct popular expression during democratic debates, with more inextricable mixture of aspiration and frustration.
The history which the humanity taught us at which price view the slim
border which can exist between all necessary limitations that, fascism, Nazism or totalitarianism have their core in the popular matrix
and unjustified expropriation of the people to the advantage of restrained elites that they are economic, juridical, technocratic
or partisan.
These tensions always existed and is still ubiquitous in the today, undoubtedly debatable democratic regimes experience
of which we live.
At the beginning of the twentieth century, economists and so renowned sociologists as Pareto, Schumpeter, Ostrogorski,
noted too from an empirical point of view more than normative that democracy was nothing else than the government of the men by elites.
When Lincoln then president of the United States of America launched his slogan: « The government of the people, by the people
and for the people », was in the choice only a compassionate aspiration or a mystic history for wise people.
Check where poor
liking, let us accept all makes it that it is the elites which govern the world.
Is irrational thing which these elites can govern
only by towing their legitimacy of the mandate of the people. It is thereabouts that fragile relation is born that the character more
or less detains the democratic regime of which:
The composition of electorate, regularity and changeability of elections, respect
and not respect for the pre-established democratic conventional rules and the real responsibility of the leaders, are necessary ingredients
of the democratic content of a regime.
To follow …
The
salient points of the incompatibility of Western democracy versus democracy African
Afrogouvernance - By Gustave Botela Lipo - August
20th, 2008.
African Democracy
The African continent was not born today. As all historians and anthropologists know it, it is the cradle
of the humanity. It gives to understand that, the term such as democracy is as old as they can think. The definition of democracy
such as WIKIPÉDIA represents it and interprets it:
Definitions and difference
Term democracy opposes to the monarchal or oligarchic
systems historically where power is detained and transmitted within a small group. In its original sense (in the state city of Athens of Ve century before
Christ), democracy (of ancient Greek «sovereignty of the people ») is the government of all (restricted to the citizens)?
They often
sum up this corpus in the expression of Abraham Lincoln: « the government of the people, by the people, for the people ». The characterization,
by articles or prepositions of, "by» and "for ", the relation between people and power that word expresses democracy, is not without
possibility of different interpretations, idea and of the principles which it contains, or of their concrete implementation. As regards
the political regimes which carry the name, or carried it, they turn out to have been or to be very various. So, today even, there
is not universally recognized definition of the fact that is or must be democracy. Since Montesquieu, however, political regimes are
differentiated thanks to the separation of powers.
Democracy became a political system (no and not a simple regime) in which sovereignty is
allocated to the people who exercises it of a manner:
· direct: regime in which the people adopt laws and important decisions himself
and chooses the agents of execution, direct democracy itself;
· indirect: regime in which the role of the people contents itself with
electing representatives, representative democracy;
· semi-direct: variety of the indirect democracy in which the people are however
called to give a ruling himself on certain laws, by referendums, veto or initiative popular.
By extension, term "democracy» often
qualifies any country which is acknowledged as to be applying democratic principles in its functioning.
Said so, today's democracy
has no more same simpler connotation indicating a regime, but rather a political system. Then, we are all agreed that there is also
Chinese democracy! If they admit the existence of Chinese democracy, why then the Westerners fight the Chinese democratic system?
So, we are all as agreed as today there is not universally recognized definition of the fact that is or must be democracy!
Given that
no clear definition on this term is admitted, then the best definition would be the following;
« Democracy it is the law of most extremely
that predominates, it is it true contemporary democracy under no other pretext. »
It is the key and the salient point of incompatibility
between term and signification of democracy according to the Westerners, and according to understanding and African connotation. The
Westerners forged their democracy according to their story and Culture. The Chinese’s built theirs according to also their story.
Is do not the Africans have the right to establish theirs according to their Culture?
To explain better that democracy does not have
clear definition let us take some examples:
- In North America (the United States and Canada); the policemen have easy tumbler. That
is to say; in lesser hesitancy, without asking for how and why of the gathering of the demonstrators and where from groups of the
young persons, they open fire and if they realize their error, they claim to be self-defense.
- In United Kingdom (England); the policemen
are not armed, are polished and courteous. And however without weapon but they succeed in stalking the thieves and the bandits. A
special brigade armed with intervention intervenes in case of fusillade from the disobedient.
- In central Europe (France, Belgium),
police violence is tolerated. In lesser hesitancy, the demonstrators are cruelly clubbed. This considered action assaults is against
the freedom of the individual in Canada.
Then among these different aspects of intervention, how to define democracy? Who of these
three regions is more democratic than other one? There of other word, who is more civilized than other one?
The debate of this subject
exceeds the setting of this account. So I leave it in your carrying.
To grab incompatibility better on the connotation of democracy
between both poles (Occident-Africa) according to my opinion, it is necessary to understand the signification of the following triad:
« States, societies and civilizations »
Understand this triad, and give her a definite sense which will allow embracing the space and
the time without too many ambiguities. I am in a line with the notion of active unity, which was introduce by some authors among whom
François Perroux and Thierry de Montbrial.
« An active unity is a human group the individual members of which are linked:
1-By a stable
system of practices, references and beliefs, in other words a Culture (with an uppercase letter, to avoid any ambiguity with other
jobs of word culture in the same context);
2-By an Organization, real on the whole group, and tightened towards purposes at the same
time indoors and outside. Still to avoid any ambiguity, they will use an uppercase letter, what will if need be allowed to speak about
the organization of the Organization. »
If we try to define Culture, we shall realize that it includes several dimensions and retorted
at different deep levels. An Organization does not represent either simply, it does not limit itself to a Constitution, but it also
includes numerous written or tacit rules of progress.
So, an individual belongs most often to Organizations of different active unity.
He can be citizen Congolese, Senegalese, Canadian, Frenchman and all at once doyen of a university and member of the Council of administration
of an international scientific alliance. Also, he can be bathed in several Cultures.
In a State, the term Culture is more delicate
and important since it includes modes of thought, beliefs, signals, statements, habits, conventions, languages, etc. It is necessary
to add the notion of sovereignty to it, in right as in fact. In right; because a State is linked by all treaties which it is signed
on international plan. In fact; because its space of action is restricted by the pressures which other States can exercise over him.
The
today's world gives rise to perplexed dispositions which they cannot even characterize. If they settled question to know; what means
the sovereignty of the States of the European Union? These States delegated to the Union and to its organisms of huge powers, even
if, by the Council of ministers, they control this Union collectively, debate will be very long.
Authority varies tremendously according
to the active unity on which practices this authority. If the queen of England is the head of the Church Anglican, that conflicts
divided on the European continent the kings and the papacy on the nomination of the bishops. And they see being born of conflicts
between States and international actors such as firms, today ONG, mafias and what do I still know?
The Africans are in close touch
with Cultures various and imported by the overseas societies. On the pretext of slogan of democracy, they impose them of principles,
criteria and laws types’ correspondent to norms different from African cultural values and civilizations. Has having known of all,
the Westerners make very their advantages there, and especially to preserve their economic and strategically interests. To arrive
there, it is necessary to play on the African moral value. In it, it is necessary to form three groups of population; - one which
is the mass popular illiterate and pence informed about all reality of daily politics; the second group, is composed of firmly corrupted
elites. The third group which consists of situation better, it is necessary to prevent them from raising the sleeping population,
so ONG and Western mass media is loaded with this mission to qualify them as terrorists, malefactors, genocides, criminal, therefore
put all in the same bag terms of the axle of evil and are at the thanks of ICP (International Criminal Court).
Democracy was imported
from the overseas societies, will never be compatible with African democracy, seen the sprains which this system causes and slows
down the development of the African continent. Even if it means the true African leaders to understand, because if they are at the
head of countries, it is not to promote foreign interests, but rather it is for the interest of the African continent.
Here are examples
types of imported democracy:
Rigged and mortifying elections in democratic Republic of Congo, an example is portraying that the international
community proved of its recklessness to institute democracy in this country. Proof is there, nothing works. They put monuments at
the head of the country. Misery establishes itself and is obvious, but of the sometime happiness belongs to the foreigners who imported
democracy in this country. All unemployed Chinese’s, Frenchmen, Belgians, Lebanese’s, Israeli, Indian, Canadians, Americans, Russians
etc, enjoy the wealth of this country.
Democracy, democracy, a slogan which to camouflage the dread of Western politics in relation
to the Africans. Destroying, thefts, rapes, genocides, all crimes which the human being can be subjected are covered under anonymity
of democracy. In the case of the democratic Republic of Congo, the population is victim of its wealth. The Westerners put their counter
democratically at the head of the country to ransack treasures better and humiliate the people Congolese. Given the report of disproportional
force, democracy is a bloody weapon that the Africans will still have to and still think of it before instituting this democratic
system based in the model of Occident.
It is never too much late. The democracy in Occident means violence. Every man for himself God
for all. Africa will never go far even after five centuries, if their leaders are in a line without manner or reason in the politics
of the democracy of the auks. African democracy must be thought according to our Culture and not according to laws and criteria established
by the overseas societies. For more than a century, that is to say time of colonization until today, what African country is worthy
and can equate their colonizer?
All that the definition of aforementioned democracy is prohibited at home, it is allowed in Africa.
The democracy to them forbids the electoral fraud. But they allow and support this fraudulent practice in the African continent. The
dictatorship, a term invented by them which is the antonym of egalitarianism, is supported by the slogan of Western democracy. Kagamé,Kabila (Kanambe), Museveni, Nkunda, are of better African leaders, because they protect the interests of the Westerners, under the
umbrella of democracy. Therefore it is the true African leaders who teach democracy the idiots of Africans what. So in all Western
mass media and ONG extols them and they are always in first page nice African leaders on the first page of newspapers.
The true leaders
and African leaders have to think there at once of instituting a democracy correspondent to requirements of African Culture and civilization.
Russia was pervaded Georgia, what makes IPC, UN, EU and the United States? Any of them does not counter so by military means? IPCcloses its face. The report of force exceeds the democracy of IPC, UN, NATO, EU and the United States? It is however the critical
instant when Banns Ki-Moon should send his Blue Helmets to democratize Russia, instead of letting them wander in Africa and violate
the Africans women.
Afrogouvernance - By Gustave Botela Lipo - August
18th, 2008.
In Western, the distinguished ideology of instant considers that today's morals rest on democracy and
market. According to this ideology, these two forms of organization are the most desirable inside active unity which the States of
this planet can constitute, because democracy assures the government of the people by the people. As for the organization of the market,
because the purchasers and sellers confront with it freely their offer and their requests, what assures an efficient use of means?
A
hypothesis in basic creed and complex coach, the term of democracy indicates at the same time theory one social and a reference of
life together, with its stocks and its vices, and that of market theory one economic at least for some, and a technology of production
and allocation of means and property and services with its advantages and its imperfections.
Western democracy is not uniform as they
can imagine it. To deliver a long-term cogitation, it is necessary to exceed the superficial views of democracy and market which transports
our common nomenclature on this notion.
Ideals and technologies which are, even inside the single State, are not always compatible
and often lead in reality in divergent opinions and compromise.
From this point of view, from what contemporary examples can they define
democracy? If they refer to the political systems of North America, Western Europe and other countries divided on the planet earth
up, we shall opt then as a system constituted by actors having numerous branches and relations between them.
In this system, democracy
makes intercede, eight main actors among whom:
1-the whole population which constitutes electorate;
2-The political parties;
3-The organized
groups or lobbies;
4-mass media;
5-The elected putting together;
6-The government;
7-The Administration and
8-The judicial.
If we regroup
it in terms of powers, there are only three groups among which:
1-executive;
2-The legislative and
3-The judicial.
As say, these eight
actors more high and these three groups form a dense network of relations which interfere.
Whatever is the form of chosen democracy
(direct, semi-direct or representative); on the foundation the citizens have very various means of communication to express him freely.
Between other one, strike, parades, petitions, groups of pressures, etc. These actions feed mass media and support their customers
of readers, listeners of viewers and allow their direct financing so by their payments or indirect by advertising, and can finally
outbrave in front of justice various actors of the governmental system.
On the way back these citizens are subjected of numerous to
influence, those resulting from roles that they exercise in the society (a civil servant in the administration, an agrarian peasant,
etc). Groups of pressures which create structures and programs is conditioned by electoral laws and issue baggage rooms of behavior,
call to direct actions, mass media which choose in information news which correspond to the stocks of the journalists, the government
and the administration of their side issue rules and judicial which imposes the executable force of its judgments.
As for the network
of the political parties, this one is not as less complex as that of the citizens. Recruit the activists, choose the candidates, define
programs to win elections, issue baggage rooms for the elected representatives, grant an occasional or uninterrupted support of pressure
groups (for instance the environmentalists who defend the respect for environment), try to influence mass media and justice, messages
which are at several levels between other one; implication of Constitution, change of rules organizing political life, proposal of
laws, etc …
These are pressures in sense reverse that the political parties of outside influence are subjected. Polls of the voters
in the pressures of the organized groups, attacks of the rival parties in the offer of collaboration of close parties, critics or
of support mass media in investigate judicial, open sea is the panoply of its influence.
Pressure groups, is a term which should not
be taken as pejorative, exercise a not negligible role within communities. In a representative democracy established in almost entirety
of the Western countries, they exist further to their well defined objectives, their choice of tiny or broad, social group to defend
their interests, to provoke demonstrations on behalf of the population, to influence the political parties and the elected representatives,
to make it up with mass media, to negotiate with the government or the administration the adoption of proper norms (the improvement
of a status, the abandonment of a plan, the conferment of a monopoly). Finally, they streamline requests of one coat of the population
unexpected or persistent, so that they are heard and tractable by the government or the administration.
These better organized groups
do not move away from their objectives of foundation. If they do not want to put on the fringes of society themselves, they cannot
advocate violence. In general, negotiations force them to respect their commitments to be credible. The only exceptions are the revolutionary
groups which, while expressing only the will of a minority, benefit from the passive support of a wide population.
The media actors
(the group of mass media), as for them, differ from others. They collect information, dispose them and re-issue them for the others.
The stocks the journalists of which are bearing influence of course are performed sorting and aspect of presentation. Some people
believe and scan even what is more mass media as source of an unbridled power. It is a very simple presentation. Mass media needs
means. They must be listened, seen or read and therefore introduce a message which, in either way, accept reasonably the citizens.
The reasons of their attachment can be the need to understand, the attraction of the unexpected, the voyeurism, which import. Support
devotes itself besides a persevered competition; where from phenomena and informational bubbles and of outrages of the common practices
which they always observe. Struggling for their independence, which is always one of the conditions of their survival, mass media
can maintain only controversial relations or at least neutral with the government or the administration.
With more discretion and modify
possible from a country to the other one, the elected assemblies collaborate on more or less three directories: they lean or refuse
support them in the government, they approve the laws which become the norms of right for all the natural or moral persons, they can
change the rules of movement of the system, that it is about electoral law or, in certain countries, of Constitution.
By taking into
account all these gymnastics and by trying to simplify, numerous lines would go from other actors towards assemblies; voters to the
elected representatives across the warping panel of electoral law and structure of parties, pressure groups towards the elected representatives,
mass media being supposed to do to reflect public opinion towards the legislative, of the government towards assemblies, notably by
the store of bills.
The government transforms completely that it is, certainly, it exercises power over the citizens and groups, either
through the administration, or with the help of the Parliament where have a support. It has in order to do that the lawful monopoly
of the usage of force indoors and outside the State. But this executive is seemingly so powerful, sudden very hard requests and critics
of actors' multiplicity. Is the political party of the majority or parliamentary opposition, mass media, the citizens, pressure groups,
and it meets, according to countries and periods, in a more or less uncomfortable and fragile position? Also it performs compromises
permanently between two objectives; be sure the support allowing him to survive, to bring some change towards future that he considers
desirable.
The administration was almost hidden always in debates of democracy. Does not it content herself with doing up texts for
the government and assuring application? Error.
- First of all, it has the technical competence without which the government could
neither offer laws nor assure daily management; in this title, it is not very sensitive to the citizens, to parties, to mass media,
to the assemblies and is interested in the pressure groups which express him in simplified terms requests of the categories which
they defend.
- Secondly, it has its comprehension of what she calls general interest, is concerned about the effectiveness of measurements,
about their coherence with existent right, about their medium term impact.
- Lastly, it has, particularly its own interests,
depending expressly or implicitly the position of the civil servants and the different bodies to which they belong. Without forgetting
as the administration is in the centre of activity and in departure of numerous influences; at the arrival, from the government or
from the organized or unprompted groups; at first, towards the government, groups, mass media and the population.
The last actor of
the list whom is the judicial, the object of which is to apply the right to two landings, as security guard of Constitution and as
administrator of trials, to the civilian and to the criminal. This is a simplistic description since, in both cases, the judicial
works out a case law which, even in the countries of written right, enriches juridical practices. The judicial is today in relation
favored with the government which, very often in the past controlled it and orientated and with the mass media which it uses to free
from the authority of executive. The citizens have influence on him only in the countries where political election applies to the
judges.
This draft of democracy as know-how within a State helps to clear the ownership which melts the viability of the system.
Afrogouvernance - by Gustave Botela Lipo - August 13th, 2008.
The prevention
of bloody conflicts, that it is about wars against hunger, that they divide different countries or that they borrow freeways without
borders of terrorism, bloody conflicts demand that they put down a look new and more informed on the norms of humanitarian intervention
in process of development. But it is also necessary to offer reforms immediately applicable to UN operations such as:
1-to allocate
an authority augmented in the general secretary so that he can raise the alarm by the maximum way in front of the imminence of a conflict;
2-to
restrain the right of veto of big potency (the five permanent) to the Security Council;
3-to reinforce the capacity of the UN to unfold
police force, Blue Helmets and, if need be, to send the troops of special intervention to warn or to suppress barbarian conflicts,
then to restore peace immediately.
It is it the true role of an Organization of peace maintains. SN (Society of Nations) saw its disappearing
further to its inability to prevent the Second World War. Today, we do not believe the war any more at the purpose; however we have
in the presence of us a supposed better structured Organization than its precursor SN, able of warning all these bloody conflicts.
We are already in full third world war, the purpose of which is uncertain. As an example, let us take only a forgotten war in the
center of Africa, in most cases in Democratic Republic of Congo, the number of the innocent victims (5,000.000) total and already
exceed the entirety of the victims of the first two united world wars. And if we figured up, such innocent victims of Darfur, Palestine,
Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, etc. and however the Organization of United Nations is well present and works in its full capacity, endowed
with a Charter which stipulates the preventions of bloody conflicts, supervised by the five big, which pretend to be the Lords of
the planet to maintain peace, but on the contrary, they always decide in favor of economic sanctions against the innocent populations
instead of helping them to go out of misery.
For what serve notion and criteria of the governance good that they impose on developing
countries, if the five big do not succeed in stabilizing peace on this planet? Basic criteria for governance good in a given country
can be applied only if complete peace reigns in this territory, finally that the leaders and populations form an alliance to contribute
to lasting development. Sub-Saharan Africa is excited permanent with bloody conflicts, of genocides, of violations of the women by
belligerents financed by foreign potency in benefits of their interests. So, the factor peace is nonexistent in their vocabulary.
All these massacres are made in the seeing and in the presence of the Organization of peace maintains. Then, what is the true corporate
name of this multilateral Organization?
On one hand, if SN was powerless to prevent the Second World War, for lack of armed contingents,
I do not see why and true reason of its dissolution. The subsidiary Organization plays the same role as its precursor however equipped
well by military means. (As recall, read my article on SN and UN of last year (2007), where from I had explained the functioning ofSN. No sentence of Charter was changed. Only the losers were moved aside from the list of the permanent). But uninterrupted to survive
however makes easier bloody conflicts which kill innocent unprotected continuously in all corners of the planet. Operations of does
maintain the peace of the Organization of United Nations really respect norms prescribed in the Charter of aforementioned organization?
Where it acts simply as aluminum umbrella to make easier transitions of weapon and protect interests of five?
The five permanent of
The Organization of United Nations, are the five big potency is saying with supreme power of the complete peace on this planet supports.
That's true that this five maintain the regional peace restricted only to their respective borders, because never the contingents
of the UN will go to maintain peace in the United States, in France, in the United Kingdom, in China or in Russia. Their borders are
protected well and their populations live in complete peace. Their children go to school, economy is planned well, criteria of thegovernance good are respected well, etc.
Since creation of Organizations of United Nations in 1945, the five permanent are the best
protecting of all. The Organization of United Nations intervenes and will never intervene in their territories. Their territories
are always in peace and in complete security.
During the period of Cold War between two blocks (the East - West), an unreliable war
to terrorize the weakest, however every scoop of the territories of developing countries had already well left again between two blocksand each did not have the right to cross territories influenced by other one. The Cuba alloyed with the Eastern block located in front
of America, could not be touched by this last and vice versa, force of NATO based in Germany could not cross borders non-allowed by
force of USSR. Agreements respected well up to proof of the opposite, after the fall of USSR. Has the Cuba the military capacity to
resist in front of the United States of America? It is rather strategically alliances between the big potency which advocate the respect
for Cuban sovereignty, that nor the Eastern or Western block can disapprove under any circumstances of these agreements, even so seemingly,
today's USSR is not any more that previous, but the military armory always exists and works in its full capacity. It is what slows
down the Western block to be able to impose their good will on all surface of the planet.
Africa which is a dairy cow of all big international
potency, nurses them all in exchange for the bloodiest weapon of attack, so that the Africans killing themselves to protect the interests
of this potency. Curious thing, the Organization of United Nations is present everywhere where bloody conflicts ravages the innocent,
but limit only themselves to condemn violent actions orally without any established prevention and an intervention developed muscles
as this barrel the case of the force of NATO in Kosovo.
Why to have made other countries to sign this treaty of the Organization of
United Nations, for maintains it of peace, however they know that the policy of intervention of the Organization of United Nations,
other is not in a realistic (not equitable manner, and then to safeguard their own economic and strategically interests in all countries
permanent not members.
Always Africa for years 1950-1960, years independence of the most part of the countries Africans, the Organization
of United Nations is always ubiquitous and at the dawn of all bloody conflicts, but the balance sheet is always negative otherwise
calamitous of the point of seen human factor. The more the contingent of force of the Organization of United Nations numerous a countries
in bloody conflicts, the more this conflict becomes interminable and even bloodier (Soudan-Darfur, R.D.Congo). There are several factors
who can definitely explain it. Between other one, the big looters concentrate in countries rich in means oil and mining, and as big
lobbies, influence decisions of intervention of the Organization of United Nations to cover their depredation in Africa. Everything
is very clear that, the Organization of United Nations is a war machine of the five permanent to cover the multinational which ransack
natural resources cruelly Africans. Therefore these Africans regions must permanently be destabilized so that these anonymous companies
become stable by ransacking in complete safety.
In Sudan because of their oil means in Darfur, word Darfur became synonymous with misery
and however a region rich in oil. His President wants to be brought to justice International because he understands destructive political
stakes of the international community, then it is necessary to invent anything for the defendant of genocide. But, courts of justice
being discussed close eyes in front of genocides against the Congolese’s, the Palestinians, and the Iraqis.
Since in Africa, on the
pretext of peace maintains, this multilateral Organization left poor memories that of check. All Big Leaders and big men of Africans
States all were almost transferred and killed in the presence of the Organization of United Nations, however present to protect and
make easier the lesson of development of the human factor. Between other Lumumba.
The presence of the Organization of Nations in a
country means the end of peace and the start of perpetual misery in this territory (Darfur, R.D.Congo). Consulting us only in Africa,
if I do not make a mistake, no African country has industries in production line of weapon of modern attack. But all belligerents
implicated in bloody conflicts in Africa have the most modern weapon of attack from the countries of the five permanent, which fabricate
it in industrial quantity to commercialize them then. How to explain this scenario? I think that answer is very easy to guess.
If it
is not through the UN where this weaponry passes in transit in the zones of battles, however watched by the Blue Helmets of the UN,
then which other explanation than Ban Ki-moon can give us?
Top of page
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afrogouvernance
– May 29th 2008.
Africa is not a continent of the mentally handicapped persons, to depend always in 100 % of the assistance of others.
Strange thing,
Africa which, known by everybody as cradle of the humanity, is still not able of being taken in hand, it must have a deep reason there
that the Africans experts in the mental analysis have to concentrate and be seriously studying.
For about more than two centuries when
the men come from others overseas walk on the Africans soil, ransack, impose how they govern, and make all that they seem to them
good for their own interests in view of the Africans leaders, and Africa is still not able of saying « Not, This is enough. », on
the contrary, Africa seems comfortable with this position of subcontract and dangerous manipulations in relation to the others.
For
more than two centuries, Africa is always in massive, collective and chronic mourning and moans immensely its fate. The inheritance
of estrangement which advances in all corners of Africa; « it is prayer». Churches and the every possible Temples create and increase
as mushrooms in Africa. A mission of estrangement is encouraged by the overseas looters, to distract the African people of invisible
happiness of beyond, which will be obvious in the next incarnation.
What a country of Africa can disclaim this hypothesis! Does Africa
of two centuries ago in relation to the others differ from actual Africa? The report of force between master and manservant did it
really change? Certain colonizers during their incursion in the most part of the certain Africans countries used this weapon which
is the evangelization to get on well with the population and then whip them in death in the hope of rediscovering happiness in sky.
Evangelists
and some pretentious elites Africans persons would throw me stones, by reporting them, if I answered that nothing changes. Of course,
I affirm and confirm that nothing changed and it became worse than ever.
For years between the mi - fifty and sixty, Africans Elites
of this period quickly understood and struggled for our freedom. Is a freedom torn off from force, in spite of the every possible
taxation by people of the North? Every African country has his one history to be told as regards events of his conflict against selfhood.
The
first Africans leaders and elites whose you all know, the fathers of Pan-Africanism, Kwamé Nkrumah and the others, wanted to make
of today's Africa, a Continent Joins and worthy of the name, a strong African Unity, for them, Africa is indivisible and must remain
united. Borders invented by the imperialists, do not favor us. For these imperialists, Africans countries are commercial bars of treasures
which block up this Continent. They did not come in Africa to civilize us. A civilization that is the Africans did not need it because,
the Continent higher African as city is the cradle of the humanity. Therefore the African people was already richer on the plan of
civilization from a distance and what the imperialists could teach us of social life, if it is only killing off?
Our first pioneers
of Pan-Africanism were above the view of Western civilization. They understood all diabolic maneuvers of our neighbors of the North.
The Africans are the single people and to go out definitely of claws of these people come from the North, the only and the only manner
of pushing them back and being able to collaborate equal it is: « African Unity». Even if some people cancel and disqualify this noble
idea, bloody conflict will never stop to the point of acquiring the complete sovereignty of the African Continent. A born blind person
can definitely disclaim the presence of the sun, but the sun will not stop to shine because the blind person disclaims her existence.
If
the United States of America became the master and the first powerful of the world on all plans today, nobody can contradict me only,
thanks to the force of Unity, the force of the thought of all elites in all States which make up the United States of America. Without
Unity, the United States of America would be in the same rank of trial and error as Europe which still searches and still, to equate
the United States of America. This old European continent will still stay and during still centuries always in the towrope of the
United States of America, because American Unit is great strong and experienced forever. To equate them, it is not in the union, but
in the Unity of States.
If Africa wants to develop, it is not in the African Union where it is the foundation. Europe will never want
and in the big never to see Africa from Unit, because Unit makes the force of people and never they can separate the Unity of a family.
Europe is aware that; once Africa joins, it is the certain stampede of the old Continent. Certain areas considered to be countries
risk disappearing and future of simple communal areas. For those who want to know more on the history of unity, to search libraries
about it to read the history of the United States of America and you will give me reason on the force of Unity.
Africa does not need
Europe for sound survive. But the opposite is true. But we Africans naps aware of this reality, and in spite of our certificates of
high studies, do not want to consist of our values and comfortable naps and in agreement with the ideology of the African Union. Who
are the losers?
The Union is not Unit as I had represented it in my other articles. The Union of people is mathematical, unpredictable
point of view. In group of elements, they can make the union of its elements and dissociate them also. Certain elements in a group,
are weak and suggestible and can pollute other elements seen the force of invisible gravitation which attracts them and makes them
depart from their natural ant original trajectory. But in a Unit, it not there no choice to dissociate the elements which it contains,
and the force of departure does not have effect if it is only to destroy itself. A Unit remains a Unit.
The history of Africa today’s,
with its numerous unjustified bloody conflicts, is the source and the first reason of the insufficiency of the African Union. Every
African state member of the Union is influenced by foreign invisible force to manage and consolidate his own financial benefits, however
unhappy for the future of all African Continent. Rarely, are the Africans leaders to support the noble plan of African Unit on the
pretext of improbable arguments.
Mourning became a first-rate ritual in Africa. For 1960s until date, the Africans mourn deaths by
millions. Deaths not scheduled by the providence, deaths caused by our avarice in the service of others. Nothing can stop this blight,
if it is only a strong African Unity. The African union bases its force on economic collaboration. It is not a negligible factor.
It is a not sufficient but necessary condition for assured the better future of the African population and to stop murders and unjustified
genocides in the African continent.
For the supporters of African Unity, they have to believe in it, although they are minority, conflict
for the true freedom of our dear African continent is a merciless conflict. To know that, Africa is poor in no way, but it is some
villainous and acquisitive leaders who make glisten the picture of Africa as the being poorest of the planet earth up. If this hypothesis
is supported by the unthinking researchers is true; what the Chinese’s, the Europeans, the Americans, etc come to search at home.
If they had self-sufficiency to them, I see no valid reason of their presence in Africa to kill the Africans on their own soil. Is
it only by kindness?
Dear leaders Africans, it is thinkable in no way for us Africans to be still anti-African. If Africa moves by
standing back, it is our own responsibility. As this saying which says that: « the enemy of an African is the African himself ». It
does not want to represent that other communities is perfect, but this saying simply show our biggest idiocy in relation to other
communities, who make fun of us and makes their deals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What good governance is
Far from being an empty slogan, the good governance is a concept born of visibility arose, in the current of universalization,
inequalities, poverty, destruction of the goods public, victims following unconcern, with bad decisions of leaders.
The definition
of the good governance depends largely on the model to which the answer refers on the line of demarcation as well theoretical as empirical,
of the principal paradigm which is founded on realism. The thought of the governance, it is an element of reinforcement of the dominant
idea, the notation of the companies as regards governance of companies which became a current practice today.
In art to direct, the
good governance is an approach in administration or management of the organizations of companies public and private, which results
in the whole of the policies and the practices set up into code of ethics being used at the same time of guide and reference to assess
the quality of the decisions and the acts initiated by decision makers or controlling, within the framework of the exercise of the
capacity; to be able which draws its legitimacy in the mandate that entrusted to them, majority of the individuals, organized in community.
Within
the scope of the public institutions that’s in margin here, this precondition often seems the condition of the other factors of development
(diffusion of the investment, redistribution of the richness, etc). But, it is not always easy to distinguish cause and consequence
and this approach is discussed, by those which see there an interference of the countries of North, holders of the funds necessary
to the financing of the development, on the political and social choices of the countries of the South in development and applicants
of assistance.
It (good governance), called upon moral principles and responsible practices which highlight, the recourse to the common
direction, human qualities and the capacity of leaders to use of their privilege, to conclude institutions under their governance,
so as to carry out programs with direct impact, in term of improvement of the living conditions of individuals.
The concept of governance
made its appearance at the end of the years 1980, in the field of the international relations. The term of “good governance”, is employed
by financial institutions to define the criteria of a good public administration.
It falls on controlling to adopt moralities which
impregnate their decisions and their acts to try to find answers to waiting of communities, then to harmonize the laid down programs
and objectives, with the real needs for individuals.
Contrary to the irresponsible control of an organization without respect of laws
and payments, hearth of frauds and corruptions, diversion of the last and the public goods where the incompetence, the personal interest,
social insensitivity, impunity, the abuse of power, characterize the behaviour of the brains trust, the good governance is a noble
approach. It predisposes the decision makers to achieve their obligations in the interest of all the members of the community concerned.
It is observed in their responsible attitude to engage interests of individuals, under their governance, with an aim of preserving
a better collective future.
From this point of view, the good governance wants to be transparent and dynamic, participative and democratic.
It is subjected readily to popular criticisms, media and lobbies, with an aim of improving the result, with the profit of each individual.
This
approach challenges the majority of the active leaders of the developing countries, of the countries of the African continent, in
what concerns us.
More and more of institutions and international organizations, financial backers of assistance bound for sub-Saharan
Africa, condition their financings with guarantees of good governance and transparency as for their use. So some see an additional
interference of powerful there and rich person with regard to poorest, the populations concerned can only profit from it.
These organizations
or associations marry the cause of the most stripped, plead for better a distribution and stock management and intend to make sure
that the behaviour of authorities in load of institutions of public interest reflects well the values and wishes of the population.
According
to the last report/ratio of the World Bank on the world governance, reviews 209 countries according to 352 criteria coming from the
World Bank itself, but also from the foundation Freedom House or the cabinet of PriceWaterhouseCoopers audit. It establishes that
the improvement of the living conditions is the result of better governance and not the reverse.
It is thus, the policy and the democracy
which take precedence over the economy, at least for a majority of country because there can be exceptions, like China or petro monarchies
of the Gulf, whose characteristics are with many regards particular.
It is not rare to find by there, of the groups of pressures, made
up individuals, members of companies civil and religious, groups of political opposition, associations of intellectuals, organizations
no governmental and people of goodwill, which assert on the public places, the adoption of the good governance like codes of ethics,
conditional to especially draw advantage from agreements of the bilateral with governments of the OECD countries, and multilateral
co-operations, near organizations supra national, by the brains trust.
Generally, good governance, namely an equitable redistribution
of richness and resources, transfers reasoned in favour of health and education, leads to better living conditions and a reinforced
reduction of poverty. Effects are effective quickly by: - The improvement of the human rights, effectiveness of the administration
and the public regulations, fights against the corruption, compliance with rules of right and the results in less than 10 years.
Thus
the World Bank, concerned of a better effectiveness of its financings, proposes to evaluate and quantify the governance using aggregate
indicators relating to six fields of governance:
- Voice and accountability;
- Political
instability and violence;
- Effectiveness of the authorities;
- Quality
of the regulation;
- Quality Rule of the law;
- Fight against
the corruption;
Since 1996 an investigation, followed by a report/ratio takes place every two years.
How can one explain that, persons
in charge for the World Bank invest body and heart with the projects of development in Africa since decades but always without convincing
result?
Is this always the fault of the African leaders, as it is always said it that they are corrupted? And if it is true,
who corrupts them? And which form of corruption, since no name referring to the Africans is reproduced on the list of richer first
51 people in the world, according to the Forbes review.
The largest financial backer of the funds in Africa, it is well-known
all; it is to us the World Bank. The World Bank never cooperates with individuals. Funds that it put is always as loan and not gifts.
That is explained why it cooperates with the States and not with the individuals, because no individual can commit himself being been
involving in debt for a whole nation. In all the African countries, the flag of the World Bank floats permanently and with complete
freedom.
After each election in Africa, almost all these new legitimate governments call upon this large financial backer of the funds.
This large financial backer is always ready to cooperate, but at any price, and always in discredit of the recipients, and yet all
their reports/ratios are well embellished by graphs of the indices of the good governance, studied well and structured by their experts
as regards the investments in the developing countries, under cover of the fabulous projects of development that the World Bank financed.
Even if the Africans are pure idiots of this planet, really none of these African leaders is still able; some is the diplomas of degree
higher than they have, to include/understand what the good governance? The purpose of who is to leave their population poverty? And
it is true that all the African leaders are so criminal on this level, always never to think of the wellbeing of their population
since decades and decades?
In almost all the reports/ratios of the World Bank, praise phenomenal sums that this last invests
in Africa and especially these last decades on projects of the good governance and transparency, in billion dollars, since then and
without any result in favour them poor Africans always expecting good governance from it. It is always the weight of the debt which
weighs more and more with the shoulders of all the African new-born babies.
In all the reports/ratios of the World Bank which I could
read so far, there is a beginning of investment in loan, for such and such project of development in Africa, but rare who speak about
the glorious end, from where poverty bent of only one percent in Africa, but rather post list of the most involved in debt African
countries planet. All the African new-born babies must of the money with all the new-born babies of the Westerners, who are the privileged
shareholders of the World Bank, and this debt will exist in durability for centuries of the centuries.
These poor and unhappy
African children, who however learn in their schools from fortune that, their Continent is richest of planet potentially, how to explain
them that it is reality, since they were born in misery, they grows in misery and is already convinced of the future, which is always
misery? These poor angels, which never saw their eyes the color of banknotes invested by the World Bank; but they are already struck
by drastic measures their large creditors who is the World Bank.
Thus, dear readers and dear readers African, how you will then
define this new concept of the good governance, which is always accompanied by great projects and of money of the World Bank is saying,
invests in Africa for noble causes, but that the result at the end of line, the rate of poverty does not cease growing in this large
continent. And even the experts of the World Bank specialized with calculations of the indices of the good governance are not able
to quantify on which level the growth rate the poverty climbs annually, and is located at this time in Africa.
In conclusion, the concept
of the good governance is still to define because, problems of the measurement of the governance establish in very first place the
requirement of a heuristic definition of the concept itself. The governance is relatively a recent term, even if the reality which
it indicates is as old as the modes of organization and management of the capacity and the human communities.
Though not yet devoted
by the major part of the dictionaries, the word governance - constitutes one of the terms most used during these last decades, more
specifically in the analysis of the modes of management and government of the developing countries.
The good governance, nowadays constitutes
a requirement with sincerer in manners, a note of appreciation, a point of completion that the brains trust, with the report heading,
of board of directors of the doctrine of state control companies and deprived corporations with public interest, must endeavour to
reach to be qualified with the supports and the friendship of the partners of international communities, also to continue to profit,
in residence, support of the majority of the population.
In order to all implement to respect this requirement and to fight the antiwar become
pandemic, it is necessary to bring the corrective measures which are essential and to consider a therapy shock, to measure.
It is
the part which Afrogouvernance as Specialist and independent Expert intends to play, if necessary, in partnership with a vast network
of organizations having immense resources to support our customers: Governments, organizations and foreign corporations, in Africa.
End
