Revolutionary Overthrow of Constitutional Orders in Africa

Chapter 5. Coups and the International Community

53 Chapter 5 Coups and the International Community The endless and widespread coups in Africa demonstrate and confirm the instability of African states and the apparent inability of Africans to govern themselves properly and democratically. At first coups in Africa appeared to have been welcomed by a large section of the international community. The West in particular saw the coup d’état as a necessary method of effecting regime change to put ‘friendly’ regimes in power. Attitude of international organizations generally The early attitude of the United Nations and the then Organization of African Unity towards military coups in Africa reflected deficiencies in international law and internal response to coups. Both held on to outdated concepts of sovereignty. They held on to old concepts of non-interference in the internal affairs of a state. As a result they refrained from condemning military coups. What is more, the international community and international law recognized the principle of ‘effective control’ rather than the principle of ‘genuine consent by the people’ as the critical indicator of regime sovereignty and legitimacy. This meant that the international community could not discourage unconstitutional changes in government and anti-democratic behaviour in developing countries.37 Nowadays, a noticeable change of attitude is reflected in the fact that coups in Africa are greeted with condemnations and calls for restoration of ‘constitutional’ government. 37 C Sampford and M. Palmer, The Theory of Collective Response, Lexington Books, 2005. (http://www.soros.org/initiatives/washington/); A. Mindua, ‘L’ONU face aux coups d’état militaries et aux gouvernements non-democratiques,’ 6 RADIC (1994) 209. 54 Jurisprudence teaches that the process of law relies upon both authority and control. In the language of that law discipline, the process of law relies upon effectivity or efficaciousness. When the military take over control of a country, there is bound to be the basic question whether they had the authority to do so. Constitutionally and from a positivistic point of view they of course do not have any such right or authority. Third states and international organisations therefore appear justified in condemning coups and calling for the return to ‘constitutional’ government. International reaction against some coups could be swift. For example, in swift reaction to the coup in Niger in 2010, ECOWAS suspended that country’s membership of that Organization and subsequently adopted sanctions against the country. The EU also suspended over US$600 million in annual budgetary support and development aid, and the US froze over US$50 million in non-humanitarian support. The point should not escape notice, however, that established governments hate military takeovers because the action is an unconstitutional means to power and is destabilizing and inimical to peace and security. The denunciation of coups by established governments can therefore be expected. The condemnation of coups by inter-governmental organisations also comes as no surprise because these bodies are the creation of governments. The African Union, for example, is strongly opposed to unconstitutional accession to power. It considers coups a bane to democratization, good governance and development in the continent. Coup-minded soldiers therefore face a serious dilemma. If their coup project fails they become liable to prosecution for treason. If it succeeds they and their government may find themselves under economic and military sanctions, including travel bans and asset freeze by bilateral or multilateral partners, designed to persuade them to return the country to democratic governance. Democracy demands that the military be subordinate to the civil authorities and democratic governance is now a condition for either bilateral or multilateral donor assistance. 55 Attitude of Western countries generally However, reaction to coups in Africa, especially by Western countries is not always productive. For instance, sometimes some Western countries (e.g. the United States of America, Britain and France) intervene militarily or diplomatically in Africa in the name of democracy. But in fact such intervention is done to safeguard their interests since they do not always withhold recognition of regimes that have come to power by unconstitutional means, but grant it so long as a regime is seen as ‘moderate’. For instance, the US initially condemned the coup in Mauritania by Mohammed Ould Abdel Aziz against President Taya, but later recognized the junta’s control. Apparently the US did so because the new regime promised to hold elections in two years and assured foreign oil companies that they will honour existing oil contracts. France adopted a similar attitude with regard...