I don't know what was on Sidioca's mind when he gave his press statement assuring the general public and reaching out for his friends and foes alike. Neither do I know what the first thought that occurred to him when the news of his victory was broken to him. But I know for sure that his happiness was unbounded and those who lined up behind him along his way up to the top post have felt on cloud nine after carrying the day. There is nothing wrong with relishing in factory and celebrating the fruit of their labor provided the president elect and his close circle of friends and supporters realize that it not about the ceremonial show of elation alone but also showing good leadership and being the leader who "reassures" as Sidioca wants to picture himself. This leads me to wonder whether the merry guys were fully conscious not only of their victory but most significantly of how it was achieved. Sidioca has to stop for a second and give a serious thought to the landmark victory. He has to fully grasp that it was an ideal scenario any presidential contender would have longed for. How?
- Winning for the first time he runs for the post
- Quickly receive congratulations from your rival and hopes for success
- Being supported by the most influential people across the board, tribal leaders, businessmen, and their influential "Samsara" as well.
- Having cozy and warm relations with power wielding CMJD.
- Enjoying the support of the continental, Arab and international community
- Leading a country which sits on oil, gas, mineral riches and which has fertile lands and generous sea.
These factors show that Sidioca has all Mauritanians and international parties on onboard with him and he is presented with a historical moment to be the man of consensus and "reassurance" he promised to be. Great. Mauritania has believed in you and in what you said, now it's your turn to show that you meant it and carry through your campaign promises. We have seen an awful lot of similar moments when presidents in civil and military uniforms celebrate their way to the palace but we also have seen a trail of frustrations as none of those presidents cared about anything other than to sustain his power and favor his inner circle of friends. They were all good at reducing the country to the state and the state to their power. Now, It's in your power to change this, to change the way the state is run and how we grew to negatively perceive it. As you can see, with the support you enjoy you can alter the face of the country for good and restore trust in the state and the political elite which has long been associated with spectacular corruption as they competed to have access to state coffers and revenue-generating positions. Mauritanians hope that you are aware of the stakes and fully understand that we're talking here about a break-or-make situation. You alone have now the power to make of it a success story and turn the tide for a people who have suffered for decades from the failure of their successive leaderships.
I'm not going to sound the alarms and from the get-go put the blame on this or that person of your entourage and warn against your past. In fact, this is what we have been doing over the last month, engaging in a fruitful debate throughout the campaign and providing a balanced and fair coverage of Sidioca and AOD as well as the first round candidates. Now that the campaign is over and we have a winner who is the choice of all Mauritanians and trusted by all of them, even his rivals, we will be well served to wait until we see his government line up and see him implementing his policies and starting business. For the time being I think we have to give him the benefit of the doubt and make sure not disturb the serenity of the first days. AOD has set a good example for us to follow when he recognized the results and joined the well wishers. Let's join in but in our own way which is to remind Sidioca of the challenges he has to meet and the chances he should not take:
There is no doubt that democracy is a good thing and organizing fair and transparent polls is a new mile stone in the history of the country. But democracy and elections will be a political surplus and an institutional luxury unless they are put at the service of good governance and the rule of law. The real test of the viability of our democratic institution will be whether it will lead to change and help implement long-awaited reforms. In fact, democracies have been eclipsed in many countries around the world because they were divorced from the realities on the ground, failing to affect a fundamental transformation in people's lives for the better. There're many cases around the world when fair election brought corrupt and inefficient elites to power which failed to address the pressing issues of the people and were therefore either overthrown or plunged their countries into civil war and mayhem. To ward off likely scenarios in our country, the incoming president has to come up with policies which will lead to change. We all will be looking forward to see the next government's plans to turn around the economy, fight corruption in public administration, fair distribution of wealth on the national level, independence of the judiciary, education, escalating poverty, widespread unemployment, human rights abuses, etc. The record of the up coming cabinet along these lines will determine whether Sidioca is going to stay the course or will backpedal on his promises as well as deciding the political future of the country. The next five-year term will be crucial in this regards and the key is to make change palpably reflected on the lives of ordinary Mauritanians.
It's now obvious that we pinch high hopes on the president and his team to bring about change in the country, especially with the support he enjoys and the riches the country boasts of. Yet these hopes will not see the light unless we strike a warning note by attracting Sidioca's attention to the other less bight aspect of the picture. Let's read between the lines of the five points listed above:
- Winning for the first time he runs for the post (with only 53%, Sidioca will be ruling a deeply divided nation)
- Quickly receive congratulations from your rival and hopes for success (well because AOD is democratic and for that reason he will change his mind and the opposition with him in case there will be an abuse of power.)
- Being supported by the most influential people across the board, tribal leaders, businessmen, and their influential "Samsara" as well (these people change allegiance like winds reason why some of them are now with AOD)
- Having cozy and warm relations with power wielding CMJD (after its dissolution, the CMJD will either go to its barracks and end its alleged support for Sidioca or hang around sending a stern warning to many people, the first of them will be Sidioca.)
- Enjoying the support of the continental, Arab and international community (only if Sidioca lived up to his promises of democratic rule and rational reform)
Your Excellency, it's up to you to lead your country to safety and enjoy the support of all parties or derail it and lose the support and who knows may loose your seat as well (Hanana ente vem). I hope, I even pray, that you will be the leader who "reassures" even though the overtones of this word has always meant the status quo, a euphemism for inaction and being static. I don't like to think of "Change in stability", which certainly rings a bell we don't want to hear anymore. Wish you good luck.
mom
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Friday, March 23, 2007
A Face To Face & A Taste Of The Contenders Ahead Of The Vote
The long awaited face to face between the two presidential hopefuls eventually took place in spite of previous delays which cast doubts about it happening at all. But somehow the two contenders managed to have time and guts to show up and confront each other in what is widely seen as landmark event which will give a boost to our incipient democratic life. With all the trappings of democracy already in place, a televised debate between the major contenders is a good step along the way of implementing democratic tradition in the country. In this regard, the mere act of holding the debate is in itself a big achievement. From now on future polls will all see candidates staking their victory on similar debates, changing the current ways of campaigning and how candidates appeal to voters. This is about the symbolic significance of the event but what about the quality of last night's debate? And how was the performance of the two candidates?
Well the debate kicked off with the two candidates introducing themselves and speaking briefly about why they run for the post and what they would do once elected. At this stage we were expecting the two candidates to paint themselves in concrete straightforward terms and talk about tangible issues, after all this introductory moment will determine how they are going to connect with the viewers throughout the debate and decide the feel at the end. Well, this didn't happen and we saw sweeping generalities and vagueness take over instead. It was clear that AOD was speaking to us from the above, assuming the position of Imam or preacher who speaks final truths and not required to argue for his point or be persuasive to get his message across. For a while I thought the voice of AOD was coming from another world as he reiterated the common universal truths of justice and freedom, etc. He gave me the impression that we were seeking his favor not the other way around. Sidioca on the other hand was more down to earth, he was quick to relate to the viewers as he went on to explain the reasons behind his candidacy and outline his plans for good governance based on plurality and the consolidation of the national unity. Even though he was not necessarily specific about these issues, he outdid AOD by speaking of himself, his objectives and calling voters to choose him. I felt the guy was talking to me and that he has something to say, whether he means it or not that's another issue.
After the brief introductory notes Ould Mamma laid down the axes of the debate which he summarized in the following six points:
National Unity
Good Governance
Fight against Poverty
Education
Economy
Foreign Policy (I don't know why he calls it foreign relations)
As you can see the six points were so interconnected and overlapping that the candidates were most of time repeating themselves. In fact at some point in the debate AOD went out of his "Ghebla" evasiveness and stated it point blank in the face of the journalist that the questions were repetitive, saying that he has already answered the question put to him. But this is another story which cuts deep into the bureaucracy reigning in the national TV and which shuts off good journalists from taking on important assignments like this one.
Let's see each candidate's take on these Axis one by one:
National Unity:
AOD: national unity is a prerequisite for the existence of the state and its prosperity (what! It's not by exaggerating and blowing issues out of proportion that we make sense and meet thorny crises like this one under consideration. AOD is once again victim to his evasiveness and ambiguity. In fact I was expecting him to tell us why there's a national unity crisis and how to remedy it, not simply the kind of hackneyed descriptions he never tires of repeating.) National Unity has suffered from incidents in 1989 and 1990 and I have always defended it out of my love for the country. One way to tackle it is through national reconciliation and spirit of forgiveness and our religion can provide us with the means to do that. I propose a reconciliatory and fair solution away from vengeance and with all parties onboard. (this is not what I have been waiting for. Well, religion and reconciliation can be used in all contexts but AOD left us in the dark about how they can address the problem of national unity. He chose to be silent on this. We will have to wait until his answer to a third question about the coexistence among the components of society to see concrete actions and measures. At this point AOD calls for an organized return for the refugees in Senegal and Mali and promised to compensate them and preserve their dignity. )
Sidioca: our future is dependent on our national unity, without which there'll be no freedom, rights or prosperity in the country. ( Strong emphasis and yet no clear policy or a platform of action. Frankly, Sidioca was echoing AOD and the common denominator between both is lack of conceptual clarity, so much so that one is inclined to think they don't belong to this part of the world. Even a second-rate journalist from "Peshmerga" could have done better.)
On the divisive issue of Language which threatens national unity AOD and Sidioca were so out of imagination as to endorse Taya's obsolete policy. They both defended his Center of National Language without further elaboration or development and said they will abide by the constitution as far as Arabic is concerned. Strangely enough I felt more at home with the former dictator's one-sided view on the issue than with their distorted logic. They were both out of touch with the realities on the ground that they couldn't finish their arguments at certain points. It seems that our hopes for fundamental change may be reduced to mere revival of old policies from Taya's era. Sad.
On the third and last aspect of the national unity question entitled " Coexistence between the Social Components", the two candidates were finally able to come up with concrete measures to sort out the problem of slavery. There was a unanimous stance on the urgent need of fighting slavery in all its forms and manifestations. Both candidates were to a large degree convincing in their views as well as their commitment to the eradication of slavery, each proposing a package of measures ranging from economic assistance to juridical outlawing of the inhuman practice. AOD was first to speak out his mind on the issue and revealed plans to criminalize the practice of slavery, a move reiterated by Sidioca.
Good Governance:
Both candidates were once again entertaining more or less the same views about how to better serve and run the country. It has to be said, though, that throughout the debate only this point was completely exhausted by both as each presented a clear policy for addressing the problems which plague the administration, i.e. favoritism, anarchy, spectacular corruption, etc. They vigorously defended the rule of law and the need for independent judiciary and the separation of powers. AOD stood out when he empathized the impact of the current state of lawlessness on the poor, passionately and sincerely highlighting how the enfranchised segments of society are the most negatively impacted by the violation of law and inefficiency of state institutions. Sidioca on the other was sharply voiced on the role of the executive power in the status quo and went some way in criticizing the former regime's record. He also proposed to set up a ministry charged with revamping the administration and warned against politicizing the administration.
Economy and Fighting Poverty:
If you have been counting on the two candidates' much publicized economic background and experience to effect a real economic transformation in the country you must then brace yourself up for a big disappointment. Up to this point in the debate I kept saying that when we reach the economic axis the two will be able to make up for their failure to be convincing on the other issues, but nothing could have been far from the truth. In fact the two "experimented" economists and former ministers were at a complete loss when they tried to piece together a reliable purchasable economic programme. AOD seemed like to stand for some sort of mix between protected and market-oriented economy while Sidioca was championing the familiar home-made version of liberal economy. Attempts to look academic and provide an expert perspective on the challenges of turning around the economy simply couldn't work. This is why AOD division of the country to three economic regions (rural East and South, Coastal West and Mineral North) was just an intellectual luxury which couldn't seem to influence his analysis of poverty, escalating unemployment, regional isolation, poor or nonexistent infrastructure, etc. The same goes for Sidioca's "Territory Management" which was incongruent with his "local associations" and "Women Associations", revived Taya's economic fragments which in no way can form a coherent and full-fledged policy.
Before going to the next point I have to say in passing that I was extremely moved by AOD's honest and heartfelt defence of the youth and the poor and his awareness that poverty is key to any attempt to tackle our economic melt down. He repeated time and again that to improve our under achieving economy, poverty has to be rooted out from NKTT and other cities nationwide and that meeting the demands of the youth is the way to national stability.
The last issue was Education which none of the two candidates seemed to have given a thought at all. It was real shame.
Twin Brothers Or Sworn Enemies:
There are moments in the debate when I thought thing are going to be hot and the exchange is set to be bullish and more aggressive. Each time, it was AOD who starts the tirade pointing the finger of blame to his rival, accusing him of having "rumuz alfassad" onboard and stuff like that. Sidioca cared to retort but avoided heated confrontation throughout. I thought may be we're going to slip to a more spirited and vigorous debate in which each rival puts up stiff resistance and makes the show more lively, engaging and interesting. But this could never have happened because these were very brief outbreaks of anger and they were quickly put under control.
Yet AOD and Sidioca have perhaps more affinities than their apparent differences. Just take time to think of these points which can be seen as political portrait for both:
- Both are economists without economic agenda
- Both are former ministers and veteran politicians with no idea of what goes on in the country
- Both are old in their sixties
- Both are first round winner with less than 25%
- Both are bad public speaker, the worst command of Arabic and French imaginable (XOY ente vem): this is a tentative glossary in Arabic (Ely ente mnein):
Drop Out (تسرب): AOD calls it (تسيب) while Sidioca (هجرة)
Election (انتخابات): Sidioca calls it (انتخاب)
Ahmed wants to impress with his Hassaniya so he uses slang like (الدكس، بوفرططٌ)
Sidioca keeps repeating all the time (يااللٌ)
As you see, one of the two will be our president, so let's hope he'll replay the face to face and see his shortcomings. This is just to leave on a happy note.
mom
Well the debate kicked off with the two candidates introducing themselves and speaking briefly about why they run for the post and what they would do once elected. At this stage we were expecting the two candidates to paint themselves in concrete straightforward terms and talk about tangible issues, after all this introductory moment will determine how they are going to connect with the viewers throughout the debate and decide the feel at the end. Well, this didn't happen and we saw sweeping generalities and vagueness take over instead. It was clear that AOD was speaking to us from the above, assuming the position of Imam or preacher who speaks final truths and not required to argue for his point or be persuasive to get his message across. For a while I thought the voice of AOD was coming from another world as he reiterated the common universal truths of justice and freedom, etc. He gave me the impression that we were seeking his favor not the other way around. Sidioca on the other hand was more down to earth, he was quick to relate to the viewers as he went on to explain the reasons behind his candidacy and outline his plans for good governance based on plurality and the consolidation of the national unity. Even though he was not necessarily specific about these issues, he outdid AOD by speaking of himself, his objectives and calling voters to choose him. I felt the guy was talking to me and that he has something to say, whether he means it or not that's another issue.
After the brief introductory notes Ould Mamma laid down the axes of the debate which he summarized in the following six points:
National Unity
Good Governance
Fight against Poverty
Education
Economy
Foreign Policy (I don't know why he calls it foreign relations)
As you can see the six points were so interconnected and overlapping that the candidates were most of time repeating themselves. In fact at some point in the debate AOD went out of his "Ghebla" evasiveness and stated it point blank in the face of the journalist that the questions were repetitive, saying that he has already answered the question put to him. But this is another story which cuts deep into the bureaucracy reigning in the national TV and which shuts off good journalists from taking on important assignments like this one.
Let's see each candidate's take on these Axis one by one:
National Unity:
AOD: national unity is a prerequisite for the existence of the state and its prosperity (what! It's not by exaggerating and blowing issues out of proportion that we make sense and meet thorny crises like this one under consideration. AOD is once again victim to his evasiveness and ambiguity. In fact I was expecting him to tell us why there's a national unity crisis and how to remedy it, not simply the kind of hackneyed descriptions he never tires of repeating.) National Unity has suffered from incidents in 1989 and 1990 and I have always defended it out of my love for the country. One way to tackle it is through national reconciliation and spirit of forgiveness and our religion can provide us with the means to do that. I propose a reconciliatory and fair solution away from vengeance and with all parties onboard. (this is not what I have been waiting for. Well, religion and reconciliation can be used in all contexts but AOD left us in the dark about how they can address the problem of national unity. He chose to be silent on this. We will have to wait until his answer to a third question about the coexistence among the components of society to see concrete actions and measures. At this point AOD calls for an organized return for the refugees in Senegal and Mali and promised to compensate them and preserve their dignity. )
Sidioca: our future is dependent on our national unity, without which there'll be no freedom, rights or prosperity in the country. ( Strong emphasis and yet no clear policy or a platform of action. Frankly, Sidioca was echoing AOD and the common denominator between both is lack of conceptual clarity, so much so that one is inclined to think they don't belong to this part of the world. Even a second-rate journalist from "Peshmerga" could have done better.)
On the divisive issue of Language which threatens national unity AOD and Sidioca were so out of imagination as to endorse Taya's obsolete policy. They both defended his Center of National Language without further elaboration or development and said they will abide by the constitution as far as Arabic is concerned. Strangely enough I felt more at home with the former dictator's one-sided view on the issue than with their distorted logic. They were both out of touch with the realities on the ground that they couldn't finish their arguments at certain points. It seems that our hopes for fundamental change may be reduced to mere revival of old policies from Taya's era. Sad.
On the third and last aspect of the national unity question entitled " Coexistence between the Social Components", the two candidates were finally able to come up with concrete measures to sort out the problem of slavery. There was a unanimous stance on the urgent need of fighting slavery in all its forms and manifestations. Both candidates were to a large degree convincing in their views as well as their commitment to the eradication of slavery, each proposing a package of measures ranging from economic assistance to juridical outlawing of the inhuman practice. AOD was first to speak out his mind on the issue and revealed plans to criminalize the practice of slavery, a move reiterated by Sidioca.
Good Governance:
Both candidates were once again entertaining more or less the same views about how to better serve and run the country. It has to be said, though, that throughout the debate only this point was completely exhausted by both as each presented a clear policy for addressing the problems which plague the administration, i.e. favoritism, anarchy, spectacular corruption, etc. They vigorously defended the rule of law and the need for independent judiciary and the separation of powers. AOD stood out when he empathized the impact of the current state of lawlessness on the poor, passionately and sincerely highlighting how the enfranchised segments of society are the most negatively impacted by the violation of law and inefficiency of state institutions. Sidioca on the other was sharply voiced on the role of the executive power in the status quo and went some way in criticizing the former regime's record. He also proposed to set up a ministry charged with revamping the administration and warned against politicizing the administration.
Economy and Fighting Poverty:
If you have been counting on the two candidates' much publicized economic background and experience to effect a real economic transformation in the country you must then brace yourself up for a big disappointment. Up to this point in the debate I kept saying that when we reach the economic axis the two will be able to make up for their failure to be convincing on the other issues, but nothing could have been far from the truth. In fact the two "experimented" economists and former ministers were at a complete loss when they tried to piece together a reliable purchasable economic programme. AOD seemed like to stand for some sort of mix between protected and market-oriented economy while Sidioca was championing the familiar home-made version of liberal economy. Attempts to look academic and provide an expert perspective on the challenges of turning around the economy simply couldn't work. This is why AOD division of the country to three economic regions (rural East and South, Coastal West and Mineral North) was just an intellectual luxury which couldn't seem to influence his analysis of poverty, escalating unemployment, regional isolation, poor or nonexistent infrastructure, etc. The same goes for Sidioca's "Territory Management" which was incongruent with his "local associations" and "Women Associations", revived Taya's economic fragments which in no way can form a coherent and full-fledged policy.
Before going to the next point I have to say in passing that I was extremely moved by AOD's honest and heartfelt defence of the youth and the poor and his awareness that poverty is key to any attempt to tackle our economic melt down. He repeated time and again that to improve our under achieving economy, poverty has to be rooted out from NKTT and other cities nationwide and that meeting the demands of the youth is the way to national stability.
The last issue was Education which none of the two candidates seemed to have given a thought at all. It was real shame.
Twin Brothers Or Sworn Enemies:
There are moments in the debate when I thought thing are going to be hot and the exchange is set to be bullish and more aggressive. Each time, it was AOD who starts the tirade pointing the finger of blame to his rival, accusing him of having "rumuz alfassad" onboard and stuff like that. Sidioca cared to retort but avoided heated confrontation throughout. I thought may be we're going to slip to a more spirited and vigorous debate in which each rival puts up stiff resistance and makes the show more lively, engaging and interesting. But this could never have happened because these were very brief outbreaks of anger and they were quickly put under control.
Yet AOD and Sidioca have perhaps more affinities than their apparent differences. Just take time to think of these points which can be seen as political portrait for both:
- Both are economists without economic agenda
- Both are former ministers and veteran politicians with no idea of what goes on in the country
- Both are old in their sixties
- Both are first round winner with less than 25%
- Both are bad public speaker, the worst command of Arabic and French imaginable (XOY ente vem): this is a tentative glossary in Arabic (Ely ente mnein):
Drop Out (تسرب): AOD calls it (تسيب) while Sidioca (هجرة)
Election (انتخابات): Sidioca calls it (انتخاب)
Ahmed wants to impress with his Hassaniya so he uses slang like (الدكس، بوفرططٌ)
Sidioca keeps repeating all the time (يااللٌ)
As you see, one of the two will be our president, so let's hope he'll replay the face to face and see his shortcomings. This is just to leave on a happy note.
mom
Friday, March 16, 2007
It's Not Always OK With A Second Round
No surprises at all! The outcome of the nation's first free ballot came largely as expected with a second round featuring the two top front-runners Sidi Ould Cheick Abdallahi (Sidioca) and Ahmed Ould Dadah (AOD). There were only two ways we could have had a winner in the first round. One, to have the military council fielding a candidate, rigging the vote and plunging us back into dictatorship and political uncertainty. The other is to have a strong and popular contender among the 19 who stood in the lections and who is capable to garner above fifty percent of the vote to win the race. Neither scenario happened for the CMJD chose to stay away from elections and oversee a civil democratic handover of power while the candidates were all too weak and unconvincing for the Mauritanians to allow anyone of them a landslide victory. And here we are, with a runoff and an electoral start over. But did we get it right or wrong? Did the message get across to Sidoca and AOD, when the people forced upon them a second round? Let us try to paint a picture of what is going on here.
For burgeoning democracies like ours, a second round is always a welcome turn of events. It's a healthy sign that the vote has been transparent and free and that we’re beyond the stage when the outcome of the polls is decided by dictatorships in power (Taya ente vem). With this race turning out to be such a tight-run thing we can congratulate ourselves that we have made a big step forward. It also tells that whoever wins he has to think of accountability for his policies and before undertaking any political gamble, he has to remember that eighty percent of the population didn't vote for him. Whether it's AOD or Sidioca, the next president has to watch his steps carefully because he received less than thirty percent of the vote and has consequently to work in terms of compromise and reach out for national consensus. Otherwise he will alienate large segments of the population and may risk a dangerous backlash. The message Mauritanians wanted to drive home to their next president is that polls are not the end of it and that a lot of work has to be done over the next five years for him to win the support of his people. It's not going to be an easy ride for the next winner who has to work hard to win a support Mauritanians declined to give him unless he merits it.
Yet a second round is not the best scenario, notwithstanding the above mentioned advantages. It's more about politicking and alliance-building than anything else. Unlike the first round when the candidates relied on programmes to promote their chances while appealing directly to voters, the ticket to victory in the second round depends on how much concessions Sidioca and AOD will be willing to make to get the backing of the candidate evicted in the first round. It's ironical that the losers are going to decide the winners of the election, those voted out by the people will come back to determine the future president. This is why we expect to see a lot of haggling, bargaining and concessions over the following week or so. Already some of the worst losers have joined ranks with either Sidioca and Ahmed and the rest will follow suit when their demands are met. The impact of this on the next government is tremendously serious. Not only we have now two weak candidates but also they will be weakened further by the compromises each should be making to win. Compromises might range from forming national unity government to doing without two or more sovereign ministerial portfolios, etc. To give you a sense of what I have in mind just think of a government line up that has AOD as president with Massoud or ZZ as PM. How a government like this one is going to work is anyone's guess. And instead of a strong president and a harmonious cabinet we will have an explosive mix which will bog us down in the next term. It's unfortunate that as much as the next five years will be crucial for instituting true democracy, turning around the economy and addressing the thorny issues of national unity, it seems that we have to come up against God knows how many barriers before we have a government capable of footing the bill for the job.
mom
For burgeoning democracies like ours, a second round is always a welcome turn of events. It's a healthy sign that the vote has been transparent and free and that we’re beyond the stage when the outcome of the polls is decided by dictatorships in power (Taya ente vem). With this race turning out to be such a tight-run thing we can congratulate ourselves that we have made a big step forward. It also tells that whoever wins he has to think of accountability for his policies and before undertaking any political gamble, he has to remember that eighty percent of the population didn't vote for him. Whether it's AOD or Sidioca, the next president has to watch his steps carefully because he received less than thirty percent of the vote and has consequently to work in terms of compromise and reach out for national consensus. Otherwise he will alienate large segments of the population and may risk a dangerous backlash. The message Mauritanians wanted to drive home to their next president is that polls are not the end of it and that a lot of work has to be done over the next five years for him to win the support of his people. It's not going to be an easy ride for the next winner who has to work hard to win a support Mauritanians declined to give him unless he merits it.
Yet a second round is not the best scenario, notwithstanding the above mentioned advantages. It's more about politicking and alliance-building than anything else. Unlike the first round when the candidates relied on programmes to promote their chances while appealing directly to voters, the ticket to victory in the second round depends on how much concessions Sidioca and AOD will be willing to make to get the backing of the candidate evicted in the first round. It's ironical that the losers are going to decide the winners of the election, those voted out by the people will come back to determine the future president. This is why we expect to see a lot of haggling, bargaining and concessions over the following week or so. Already some of the worst losers have joined ranks with either Sidioca and Ahmed and the rest will follow suit when their demands are met. The impact of this on the next government is tremendously serious. Not only we have now two weak candidates but also they will be weakened further by the compromises each should be making to win. Compromises might range from forming national unity government to doing without two or more sovereign ministerial portfolios, etc. To give you a sense of what I have in mind just think of a government line up that has AOD as president with Massoud or ZZ as PM. How a government like this one is going to work is anyone's guess. And instead of a strong president and a harmonious cabinet we will have an explosive mix which will bog us down in the next term. It's unfortunate that as much as the next five years will be crucial for instituting true democracy, turning around the economy and addressing the thorny issues of national unity, it seems that we have to come up against God knows how many barriers before we have a government capable of footing the bill for the job.
mom
Friday, March 9, 2007
X O Y Wrote His Farewell But His Story Has Just Begun: Democracy
"vous venez de lire le dernier blog de x ould y !"
Is it just a frightening nightmare from which I'll wake up tomorrow to read his new blog and heave a sigh of relief? I can't believe that the next time I type the familiar link and click on it I'll see nothing other than souvenirs and memories of days of hopes and aspiration. To me, the blog of X Ould Y was not just a platform of free speech or a wonderful gathering place from the world of Arabian Nights, it was more than that. Everyone of us, Mauritanians rendered anonymous by tyranny and state oppression, felt like we're part of something greater than the prosaic daily struggle to earn a living. Everyone of us felt that he matters for the first time and that what he says is going to be heard. We all felt that there's something somewhere which unites us and brings us together, in spite of all efforts to tear us apart. X ould Y was that something somewhere, nameless and without identity. It was simply the story of Everyman(woman), the Noah ship that saved us all from giving in to the dictates of the status quo and succumbing to despair.
It's strange when I remember (we start speaking of him in these terms) the first time a friend of mine gave me the internet link of "x". His words were something like "you won't regret it, this is different from what we used to read about the country". I copied down the link, saved it and forgot about it. My idea was that my friend was just initiating a conversation and I went along with him out of civility. The next time my friend came to me and asked if I read the new blog and my answer betrayed everything. This time he refused to go away after he made sure we read the post together. From that day and until this farewell blog I've never missed one single story on "X Ould Blog". It was an addiction, I was X.O.Y addict.
I'm not going to dwell on the political role of the bolg since all the visitors have a firsthand experience of what it means to be hosted by "X". Yet it has to be said that x has left us different and more politically aware and engaged than when he first found us three years back. It's his legacy that I want to highlight since the role his blog played is known to all of us. Pioneer as he was, his presence or his shadow ( I'm inclined to think of him as our ZORO or Ould Mseika) will be there in the backdrop of our political life and debates. I can see him already being sited on this or that topic and his memory invoked all the time by all of us in all the walks of our life. It's great that you've entered our lives without warning and choose to make an end to your presence without forenotice, yet you were welcome when you first stepped in and greatly missed when you left, this is characteristic of all legendary characters.
All my life I've sought to find a Mauritanian who can stand up to power regardless of the costs, all my life I've found Mauritanians who stood up to power only when it's no more. You made the exception and that's also legendary. By power I mean the state, the taboos, the conformity , main stream culture and views, all these forces which occlude difference and limit individual freedom. It's not hyperbolic when I say that you are the first Mauritanian to my knowledge who matched words with deeds, and asked us to speak against tyranny after you have taken the lead yourself. Thanks.
This is between us :I don't believe in "Zyaratt el Kubur", but I'll keep visiting the blog as I used to do at the same timing. Something tells me that the others will follow suit, sure.
My final words fall far short of conveying my deep sense of gratitude to the service you've done and I'm sure you'll continue to do in your own way to our country and yours. Honestly we're a nation without symbols, living or dead, who can be witnesses to our achievements as a nation and a people. Our memory has always been short and didn't keep a record of the people who truly served us without expecting anything in return. I hope that this time around we'll succeed to immortalize you somehow. I know that statues won't be accepted but we can still give your name to a magazine, a journal or a wide circulating intellectual edition of some sort.
As for me, you'll be my Ould Mseika forever.
Hope you get married and settle down , it's about time (lol)
mom
Is it just a frightening nightmare from which I'll wake up tomorrow to read his new blog and heave a sigh of relief? I can't believe that the next time I type the familiar link and click on it I'll see nothing other than souvenirs and memories of days of hopes and aspiration. To me, the blog of X Ould Y was not just a platform of free speech or a wonderful gathering place from the world of Arabian Nights, it was more than that. Everyone of us, Mauritanians rendered anonymous by tyranny and state oppression, felt like we're part of something greater than the prosaic daily struggle to earn a living. Everyone of us felt that he matters for the first time and that what he says is going to be heard. We all felt that there's something somewhere which unites us and brings us together, in spite of all efforts to tear us apart. X ould Y was that something somewhere, nameless and without identity. It was simply the story of Everyman(woman), the Noah ship that saved us all from giving in to the dictates of the status quo and succumbing to despair.
It's strange when I remember (we start speaking of him in these terms) the first time a friend of mine gave me the internet link of "x". His words were something like "you won't regret it, this is different from what we used to read about the country". I copied down the link, saved it and forgot about it. My idea was that my friend was just initiating a conversation and I went along with him out of civility. The next time my friend came to me and asked if I read the new blog and my answer betrayed everything. This time he refused to go away after he made sure we read the post together. From that day and until this farewell blog I've never missed one single story on "X Ould Blog". It was an addiction, I was X.O.Y addict.
I'm not going to dwell on the political role of the bolg since all the visitors have a firsthand experience of what it means to be hosted by "X". Yet it has to be said that x has left us different and more politically aware and engaged than when he first found us three years back. It's his legacy that I want to highlight since the role his blog played is known to all of us. Pioneer as he was, his presence or his shadow ( I'm inclined to think of him as our ZORO or Ould Mseika) will be there in the backdrop of our political life and debates. I can see him already being sited on this or that topic and his memory invoked all the time by all of us in all the walks of our life. It's great that you've entered our lives without warning and choose to make an end to your presence without forenotice, yet you were welcome when you first stepped in and greatly missed when you left, this is characteristic of all legendary characters.
All my life I've sought to find a Mauritanian who can stand up to power regardless of the costs, all my life I've found Mauritanians who stood up to power only when it's no more. You made the exception and that's also legendary. By power I mean the state, the taboos, the conformity , main stream culture and views, all these forces which occlude difference and limit individual freedom. It's not hyperbolic when I say that you are the first Mauritanian to my knowledge who matched words with deeds, and asked us to speak against tyranny after you have taken the lead yourself. Thanks.
This is between us :I don't believe in "Zyaratt el Kubur", but I'll keep visiting the blog as I used to do at the same timing. Something tells me that the others will follow suit, sure.
My final words fall far short of conveying my deep sense of gratitude to the service you've done and I'm sure you'll continue to do in your own way to our country and yours. Honestly we're a nation without symbols, living or dead, who can be witnesses to our achievements as a nation and a people. Our memory has always been short and didn't keep a record of the people who truly served us without expecting anything in return. I hope that this time around we'll succeed to immortalize you somehow. I know that statues won't be accepted but we can still give your name to a magazine, a journal or a wide circulating intellectual edition of some sort.
As for me, you'll be my Ould Mseika forever.
Hope you get married and settle down , it's about time (lol)
mom
Monday, March 5, 2007
Campaigning the Mauritanian Way and Plus
One of the few surprises in this dull and seamless campaign is that you have to bear it to the end. Ten days have gone by and we're still in the dark about who is leading the show or who is losing. In other parts of the world, mechanisms like polls, tv debates, among others help voters make their minds about candidates at an early stage. From day one, people are provided with information about where candidates stand, their ranking and approval ratings. None of this is likely to be seen in our version of electoral campaigning. Instead Mauritanians have to wait until they cast their ballots to be able to make sense of it all. It's a case of bear it or leave it. it's maddening to see that we're losing the whole point about the campaign despite all the talk about reform and change in the country. The 19 male candidates look very much at ease with the way the campaign is conducted, there's in fact no reason why they shouldn't since it costs them little else than putting up smiley faces and calm and confident postures when taking poses. Their motorcades are roaming the country and are met with shouts of joy and cheers wherever they go. When we loose serious debate to entertainment we expect to find unknowns like Rashid Mustafa flying the skies of the country and competing for presidency. The guy flies in his own jet and drives a brand-new black BMW and thinks he gets therefore everything it takes to rule our country.
Worse, the so-called serious contenders are doing nothing to stop this careless mentality of anything goes. They're in fact contributing to it. We have seen how their view of the campaign is tantamount to organizing meetings, featuring in tv time slots, touring the country and crafting wild progrmmes which no sound mind can take onboard. How far do their message get across is not the type of question they bother to ask. Immoral as it is, this across-the-board political conduct explains the campaign's lack of substance and the collective focus on the show part. One of the candidates is taking Dimi mint Abba along with him and when he goes to the podium to speak he makes sure she is there before him. His idea is that Dimi would attract curious onlookers to his meeting. The show is the bottom line.
This style of campaigning cuts deep into the political tradition of the country which is largely shaped by the current system of anarchy dating back to Taya's rule. What's the difference, say, between AOD's or Massoud's campaign and Taya's non-stop carnival-like tours nationwide. Same to me. It's mind-boggling, above anything else, to see that everybody is at home with this campaign. It makes sense to have drawbacks, failures and shortcomings but it equally defies it to have no one speaking against them.
Under these circumstances, the candidates who are most likely to suffer are those who are going about it the modern way. It takes a modern political culture to have politicians with modern vision in power. For the time being, nothing of the sort is going to happen, unfortunately. We have to wait still, my fear it will be like wating for Godot!
Political updates:
AOD is growing to like Ely and the CMJD at a time his archrival Sidioca is marking his space from both. Curious, isn't it? Yes its true, Ahmed Ould Dadah is leaning toward the camp of power, more so that he can't keep it in secret anymore. The problem is that he insists on saying it publicly in meetings, press conferences and lately in front of his supports in "Qaser Almutamaratt". Why? Certainly Ely has no interest in a public love affair with anyone, male or female. He wants to stay away from the ups and downs of the political life and subsequently won't welcome anyone pulling him back into it, least of all AOD. It is thus an unreturned love story. Maybe Ahmed is betting on its being returned one day, 11 March for example. On the other hand, Sidioca has gone lately out of his way in his relation with Ely. During his tour in the south, Sidioca may have found himself lost half way through his speeches many times, but never ever did he forgot for a second to deny having any relationship with the CMJD. Maybe he was acting on the CMJD's advice (lol). Both have interests in selling the lie.
Worse, the so-called serious contenders are doing nothing to stop this careless mentality of anything goes. They're in fact contributing to it. We have seen how their view of the campaign is tantamount to organizing meetings, featuring in tv time slots, touring the country and crafting wild progrmmes which no sound mind can take onboard. How far do their message get across is not the type of question they bother to ask. Immoral as it is, this across-the-board political conduct explains the campaign's lack of substance and the collective focus on the show part. One of the candidates is taking Dimi mint Abba along with him and when he goes to the podium to speak he makes sure she is there before him. His idea is that Dimi would attract curious onlookers to his meeting. The show is the bottom line.
This style of campaigning cuts deep into the political tradition of the country which is largely shaped by the current system of anarchy dating back to Taya's rule. What's the difference, say, between AOD's or Massoud's campaign and Taya's non-stop carnival-like tours nationwide. Same to me. It's mind-boggling, above anything else, to see that everybody is at home with this campaign. It makes sense to have drawbacks, failures and shortcomings but it equally defies it to have no one speaking against them.
Under these circumstances, the candidates who are most likely to suffer are those who are going about it the modern way. It takes a modern political culture to have politicians with modern vision in power. For the time being, nothing of the sort is going to happen, unfortunately. We have to wait still, my fear it will be like wating for Godot!
Political updates:
AOD is growing to like Ely and the CMJD at a time his archrival Sidioca is marking his space from both. Curious, isn't it? Yes its true, Ahmed Ould Dadah is leaning toward the camp of power, more so that he can't keep it in secret anymore. The problem is that he insists on saying it publicly in meetings, press conferences and lately in front of his supports in "Qaser Almutamaratt". Why? Certainly Ely has no interest in a public love affair with anyone, male or female. He wants to stay away from the ups and downs of the political life and subsequently won't welcome anyone pulling him back into it, least of all AOD. It is thus an unreturned love story. Maybe Ahmed is betting on its being returned one day, 11 March for example. On the other hand, Sidioca has gone lately out of his way in his relation with Ely. During his tour in the south, Sidioca may have found himself lost half way through his speeches many times, but never ever did he forgot for a second to deny having any relationship with the CMJD. Maybe he was acting on the CMJD's advice (lol). Both have interests in selling the lie.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)