The Future Of The Country Still In The Balance After Two Months of Sidioca’s Rule

The 3rd of August 2005 could have been just another day in the tumultuous history of this struggling nation at the tip of the Sahara, had it meant nothing more than just another power struggle among the ruling military elite which had ruled over the country for the last three decades. Luckily for us it hadn’t. The junta which toppled the authoritarian regime of Taya pledged to put the country back on track and hand power over to an elected civilian government, winning a wary and skeptical international community and a reluctant albeit sympathetic national opinion. The new leaders went even further by taking tangible measures towards achieving these goals and involving world and national players in the processes and policies aimed at setting the groundwork for real change in the country. The military was able to ride out the storm it created by picking up the right issues and making the right promises which matter internationally and domestically, building trust and bolstering its legitimacy. It promised a new era of democracy and transparency to counter international worries about the possible instability in the country and its spill over on regional peace. It goes without saying that the last thing the US and Europe would want is the prospect of another failed state which will easily fall for al-Qaida branches already active and operating in the region as well as being a safe passage for illegal immigration and drugs trafficking. By defending its case on a democratic platform the military succeeded not only in allaying fears about its being a force of instability but also in painting itself as promoting a democratic model which could be replicated in the rest of the Arab world.

Courting the favor of the national opinion on the other hand was by far an easier ride. The population which has lost hope for the future was waiting in the wings to see the back of Taya. So when the time came and Taya was overthrown peacefully in a bloodless coup, Mauritanians were ready to close ranks around the new crop of leaders and express support for them. The following democratic pledge was for many a foregone denouement of a national awakening story that kicked off with the fall of the dictator. This alone accounts for the national consensus which marked the two-year-long transition and the willingness to condone the at-times grievous blunders committed by the CMJD and the civil government. Dissent was viewed with mistrust as everybody was keen to make the transition smooth and successful, even though success has meant on many occasions turning a blind eye to pitfalls in the run up to the elections and the transfer of power. It appeared as if there was a tacit trade off between the general public and the CMJD whereby the latter relinquishes power and can get away with its mistakes in return, a win-win deal which both sides have honored.

The question on everyone’s mind now is whether the newly elected government will be able to follow in the lead of the CMJD, drumming international and domestic support for its democratic pledges, without delivering on the urgent issues of genuine reform. Although the answer is clearly “no”, the government looks set to make a repeat of the transition’s recipe of failure, mindless that the consequences of failure this time will be grievous and far reaching.

Indeed Sidiocazz may miscalculate that political openness alone will tip the scales in their favor, sparing them the trouble of combating rampant corruption and effecting a tangible improvement in the standards of living. This strategy which helped the CMJD steer clear of troubles would only plunge the current leadership into more crises, as more and more people are fed up with the democratic talk without any change in their lives.

The enduring culture of corruption can not be reversed with the traditional brand of administrators in charge. A new and clean generation of administrators has to take matters in hand and restore credibility to the public administration and the state. This belief, shared by the opposition as well as the ruling majority, was behind the president's choice of a new-look government line-up which boasts of featuring none of those close to the former regime. But this move, intended to send a potent message about the president's will for change, soon backfired. Made up of mostly novice low-profile administrators, the new government couldn't catch up with the daunting challenges facing it. To make matters worse, the new government was not only lacking in terms of experience but also had no plan to deal with various crisis which rocked it from day one. Right after it assumed authority, the Pandora's box of water and power shortages and prices increase broke open. Shanty districts, and even some up-market neighborhoods, of the capital suffered a severe water crisis which lasted for a month. Water shortage, which can be chalked up to a variety of reasons chief among which are the absence of long-term national policy of water and dysfunction of corruption infested Sonelck, was left to take its toll on the residents of Nouakchott as government officials remained in denial about the crisis. The same goes for the recurrent blackouts which hit Nouackchott almost daily. The new government was not only confused and incompetent but also showed it had not let go of obsolete practices of authoritarian regime. What we have seen is a bunch of ministers whose primary concern is to defend the sanctity of the state instead of facing the crises gripping the country head on, leading to the conviction that the government has undergone a change in style but not in substance.

So people's hopes for far-reaching reform are dashed by the government's failure to reinvent itself as a force spearheading change, stoking fears that the prospects of uprooting corruption in the public administration are still out of reach. This bleak outlook is further consolidated by a host of other measures which belie the new leadership's ambivalence about a complete break with the past. Every now and then new appointments to sensitive positions in the administration are announced, benefiting prominent members of the former regime. These appointments include the key positions of general secretaries of ministries, diplomatic sector and other facets of the administration. The aim behind this dangerous policy is two fold: to secure popular support by appointing a new breed of ministers, though inefficient ones, and bring the old generation through the back door and let them run the show. This is the least that can be said about an administration which allows a strong come back of Taya's cronies like Mohamed Vall Ould Ballal and Sidi Mohamed Ould Bubakar, among many others.

The president and his PM could have enjoyed the benefit of the doubt had it been a question of failing to have the right picks for the ministerial portfolios. People could always understand that twenty one years of methodic corruption under Taya made it extremely difficult to find picks with the double merit of being clean and competent. But what they couldn't understand is the leadership's open door policy toward including the remnants of the former regime in the running of the country. At a time hopes are at a high about the government adopting a zero-tolerance stance vis a vis corruption, the public opinion is shocked by what appears to be a premeditated plan to hold the country ransom one again to the corrupt class of the old regime. The appointment of one of the president's family members to the key post of deputy governor of the central bank is only another case of corruption which does not help refurbish the damaged image of this government.

The outcome of the last polls was very revealing about the choice of Mauritanians and offered a good lesson for next leadership. The fact that the results of the ballot was decided in a second round with a very narrow win by the incumbent is indicative that the consensus which marked the transition is over. It highlighted a divided community which is not speaking with one voice about who would be its next leader. Sidioca's lesson would have been to crack down on corruption and pursue reform aggressively in order to unite the nation behind him. What he did is the opposite. He took public support for granted, unaware that he can not enjoy the impunity of the CMJD because circumstances as well as expectations have changed. People rallied behind the CMJD because they relieved the country of Taya but most importantly because people wanted the military to go after their mandate is over. With Sidioca it is the other way around. People believe they have given him power and they are itching for their due. So "deliver" is the name for their bond with the president, who still has a lot of catching up to do to grasp this new reality.

mom