Gaddafi’s brutal end is not the first or the last for an African tyrant

By Moses Odokonyero

Swinging a can of beer, the sweaty and yelling rebel commander asked the battered and visibly terrified man: “Where is the money?”  Like a cornered animal, the man, dressed only in blood-soaked underwear, desperately pleaded for his life but the gang of seemingly intoxicated rebels ignored his plea and went ahead to slice off his ears(presumably because they never listened) before executing him like an animal.

It may sound like an episode from a bad Nigerian movie but no, it is how former Liberian strongman, Sergeant Samuel Doe’s life ended when rebels captured and executed him in 1990.

You can still watch this grotesque video online, if you have the guts, and you are above 18.

So the gruesome and to many, joyous death of the flamboyant and eccentric former Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi, is not the first horrific death of an African tyrant that the continent has witnessed.

But even then the sight of a once proud and prancing ‘king of kings’, bloodied and  plucked out of  ‘ a rat hole’ and shortly after, according to some accounts, executed, must have sent a trembling cold chill in many presidential spines across the  African continent. Palace occupants who are ‘believers’ in the existence of someone more powerful in the skies might have said one or two prayers for such a calamity not to befall them.

Only in April this year former Ivorian President and ironically a former history Professor, Laurent Gbagbo, failed to learn from history by attempting to cling onto power only to be  disgracefully drilled out of a presidential bunker with his wife and son in tow.

Of all the African tyrants who have since been ousted from power only Sani Abacha of Nigeria had a ‘sweet’ exit reportedly after his heart snapped due to an overdose of Viagra during a hot sex orgy gone bad.

Africa is now littered with examples of what befalls leaders who cling on and rule their countries like private property. Gaddafi is sadly (because he should have been tried) the latest addition to this impressively growing list?  And he may not be the last.

After the end of the cold war tyrants who had aligned themselves to either the Americans or the Soviets lost relevance to their allies. Mobutu Sseseseko was one such jerk that fell off the swing for his failure to appreciate the changed world order. Unlike Gadaffi, Mobutu did not have the ‘luxury’ of dying in his dear Gbadolite (an equivalent of Gaddafi’s Sirte).

At about the same time Mobutu fell, a clique of African leaders emerged. These were mistakenly called ‘new breed’ by then US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.

Among this group is Uganda’s Museveni. This lot, having learnt lessons from the fall of the likes of Mobutu, perfected the art of strategically and cunningly positioning themselves to be of constant relevance to the West.

But even strategic positioning may no longer be a guarantee for monarchical rule. Hosni Mubarak was strategic to the Americans so much so that Washington in the initial stages of revolts in Tahir Square dilly-dallied without a strong position on what do to with Mubarak until the old despot was drowned in a sea of protesters.

In his visit to Accra two years ago, Barrack Obama, urged Africans to take their destiny in their own hands.

The Libyans with the obvious big hand of NATO literally did so when their hands landed on Gadaffi. It was a pathetic sight seeing  the ‘king of Kings’ powerless being tossed around but also a stark reminder to clinging tyrants that when you drive people nuts during decades of absolute misrule you make these very people capable of doing nutty things on you when you fall.

The writer is a post graduate student, in the department of Journalism and Communication at Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda.

By Moses Odokonyero - modokonyero@masscom.mak.ac.ug

Mass Media or Public Media?

In his 1956 book The Power Elite the American sociologist C. Wright Mills sketched the difference between a 'public society' and a 'mass society'. He thought this difference could best be understood in terms of the characteristic forms of communication found in each.

In a public society the archetype of communication is a conversation between equals where 'virtually as many people express opinions as receive them' and 'communications are so organised that there is a chance immediately and effectively to answer any opinion expressed in public'. A public, as opposed to a mass, can translate its opinions into effective action. It can change policy as its opinions change. In a mass society, on the other hand, the most characteristic form of communication is a broadcast that delivers one unanswerable voice to millions of quiet and attentive listeners. There is little or no scope for individuals to answer back to the messages they receive. There is certainly no way that the inhabitants of a mass society can translate their opinions into politically effective action.

For much of the time after Mills wrote The Power Elite the trend in the West was towards greater massification. In America, the formal and informal publics that convened to discuss matters of shared concern were, to some extent, supplanted by televised and heavily stage-managed events - the studio audience replaced the town hall meeting. In Britain, political parties, which once provided at least some scope for public discussion in Mills’ sense, became increasingly centralised. Party conferences ceased to be venues for debates about policy and active membership dwindled.

More generally, politicians in both country adopted techniques and personnel from the entertainment and public relations industry and aspired to create the illusion of public engagement while suppressing its potential to disrupt elite decision-making. For a while it seemed that new technologies would only provide them with new resources for manipulation and surveillance.

But there are now encouraging signs that a public society is reviving. In part this is because modern communications technology has made it possible for at least some groups to communicate without relying on broadcast and print media. Social network sites have made citizens audible and visible to one another. In the run up to the occupation of the City of London, for example, thousands of people used a Facebook page to express their intention to show up. Occupations in hundreds of other cities have taken advantage of social media in similar ways.

To a much greater extent, though, something like a public society is emerging because the major media no longer seem able to describe the world accurately. The ongoing financial crisis in particular has done huge damage to the prestige of the major news operations. They didn’t see it coming. They misunderstood it when it happened. And they still struggle to state the blindingly obvious, that the private credit system has failed, and that banking must now come under effective democratic control.

As a result of these shortcomings in the media, politically motivated publics are starting to assemble online and in the real world. And this, I think, is what is driving the occupations movement - the recognition that the descriptions on offer in the mainstream media don't make sense, that the machinery of representative politics is broken, and that these are two aspects of the same problem.

When people meet at the occupations they adopt techniques for discussion and deliberation that aspire to what C. Wright Mills would have called public communication. The assemblies that have sprung up are explicitly intended to ensure that ' virtually as many people express opinions as receive them'. The occupiers are seeking to create a shared understanding that in turn informs a political programme, that is, to communicate in publicly effectual ways.

So far these innovations and the conversations between equals they make possible have barely featured in the world of broadcast publicity, the information system that most people rely on most of the time. Television likes to draw on a stable spectrum of supposedly legitimate opinion to frame debates about public policy. It has, for the most part, never occurred to them that they might better spend their time facilitating discussion between citizens. Consider this - when did you last see two 'ordinary people' discuss any matter of public interest at length on television?

A deliberating public

Any process of free deliberation can easily be misrepresented and many in the conventional media are busy doing so. This is hardly surprising. The occupations have declared the spectrum of opinion visible in the broadcast media inadequate and indeed unreal. They are discussing first principles on the basis of equality and mutual recognition. It will take time for some journalists to recognise that their current working assumptions and practises are part of the problem the assemblies are seeking to remedy.

A deliberating public is not an organised and disciplined group, which can be expected to remain unswervingly on message. So it is a simple matter to find cranks and to declare that they somehow embody the meaning of an occupation. When they aren’t accusing them of deranged extremism, broadcasters and others sometimes decide that the occupiers are incoherent and confused, which is another way of criticising a participatory model for not adopting the message control preferred by modern political parties and corporate public relations departments.

Indeed, for the most part, the major media cannot bring itself to notice the political intent of occupation-and-assembly, to register that what is being tried is another kind of politics, which entails a different model of communication. Yet this is a movement with a long history. Though significant numbers of people in Britain and the United States are only beginning to master the language of assemblies and working groups, citizens in Latin America have been building participatory forms for decades.

Journalists are not stupid. They must know that their audiences will not be satisfied for much longer with coverage that defers to a ridiculous political and economic establishment while mocking or misrepresenting serious and well-intentioned citizens. It is past time that journalists found ways of reporting that support public participation. They have been trained to convey the views of the decision-makers inside to the masses outside. But rather than watch a simulacrum of public life, more and more people are looking to achieve public status for themselves. They are looking for media that acknowledges this and helps the citizen body to form itself, to clarify its opinions, and act as it thinks best.

The challenge for many journalists, in other words, is to describe what is happening in front of their eyes. If they choose to remain committed to their understanding of how communications should be organised, if they remain wedded to their privileges as operatives in the mass media, they risk irrelevance. For the occupations are not demonstrations or mobs. They are an attempt to create a public society.

Dan Hind has worked in publishing since 1998 and is the author of two well-acclaimed books: The Return of the Public and The Threat to Reason. He is also a regular contributor to The Guardian.
Follow him on Twitter: @danhind

Article ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED Oct 20, 2011 ON AL JAZEERA website; CLICK LINK: http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/10/201110207714864929.html

Ministers appear in court over Chogm

Three Ministers who voluntarily stepped out of office on Wednesday were yesterday granted bail, after being charged in connection with misappropriation of funds meant for the preparation of the Commonwealth Heads of Governments Meetings (CHOGM) in 2007.

The trio; Sam Kutesa (Foreign Affairs), Eng. John Nasasira (Government Chief Whip) and Mwesigwa Rukutana (State Minister Labour) appeared before Anti- Corruption Court Chief Magistrate Irene Akankwasa, where they denied the charges. They were later released on bail upon presenting 15 sureties who were also ordered to deposit their passports.

Driven to court individually in government vehicles, the accused were charged with abuse of office and causing financial loss of Shs14 billion Chogm 2007 funds. Ms Akankwasa ordered each of them (Kutesa, Nasasira and Rukutana) to pay cash bail of Shs40 million and deposit their passports in court. Court also ordered their sureties to deposit their passports and bonded at Shs1 billion each not cash.

A plea by Mr Rukutana to have his passport returned to enable him travel to Tanzania for a business trip was denied. “The request for the order stopping the accused persons from accessing their offices is not necessary. They will honour their own commitment earlier communicated but the accused persons and their sureties will deposit their passports,” ruled Ms Akankwasa. The trio appeared calm and relaxed amidst heavy security deployment both in plain clothes and in uniform. The court registry was closed for close to four hours as the formalities of the case were done.

“We reiterate our innocence and we have full confidence in the Judiciary, we are sure that our innocence will be established,” the trio later said in a joint statement.

Prosecution led by the Head of legal Affairs at the Inspectorate of Government, Mr Sydney Asubo, alleges that on December 17, 2005, at Speke Resort Munyonyo, Mr Kutesa, Eng. Nasasira and Mr Rukutana while performing their duties as ministers abused the authority of their offices an arbitrary act prejudicial to the interest of government.

It is alleged that the trio irregularly convened a consultative cabinet sub-committee meeting on behalf of the cabinet sub-committee on Chogm and decided government would fully fund the construction of drive ways, parking areas and marina at Munyonyo Speke Resort Hotel which decision they did not have the mandate to make.

The IGG said the ministers, purporting to act on behalf of the Chogm sub-committee, irregularly committed government to fund the constructions that cost Shs14,008,138,092 well knowing or having reason to believe that such commitment would cause and did cause financial loss.

Story by ekasozi@ug.nationmedia.com & rwanambwa@ug.nationmedia.com published in the Daily Monitor Newspaper http://www.monitor.co.ug/News/National/-/688334/1255146/-/bi19n0z/-/index.html.

Makerere suspends Masters in Journalism

Makerere University has suspended its master’s programme in journalism and communication due to ‘inadequate competent staff.’

Journalism is the second post-graduate programme to be suspended in a space of one year. Over 100 students had applied for the course, following newspaper and online adverts which the university ran in February.

The university had earlier in September 2010 suspended its doctor of philosophy degree (PhD) programme in education management and administration also due to inadequate proficient teaching staff.

The proposal to suspend the master’s in journalism programme was mooted by the administrative staff at the mass communication department after some of their senior academics resigned early this year. Master’s and PhD courses are taught by professors and senior lecturers who have PhDs.

Those who resigned include Dr. George Lugalambi, who was the head of the department. He had succeeded Dr. Peter Mwesige, who resigned in 2008 to take up a senior position in a Kenyan media company, before setting up his African Centre for Media Excellence the following year. Lugalambi reportedly got a lucrative job with the Revenue Watch Institute and was posted to its Ghana office. Other staff allegedly went on sabbatical.

However, Prof. Godfrey Kirumira, the deputy principal of the college of humanities and social sciences, said the suspension would only affect students who had applied to join the course.
“The department suggested that we do not admit first-year students. The programme will run with the continuing (second-year) students who will be doing their research,” Kirumira said.

The 2011/2012 academic year starts next week on Saturday. But Kirumira explained that this year’s journalism applicants will wait for the 2012/2013 intake, where they will not need to reapply.
The university senate, which is the institution’s topmost academic decision-making organ, meets next week to formalise the suspension of the course.

However, some of the students who had applied have not been amused by the development.
“Makerere ought to get serious. If they knew there were not enough lecturers, why did they advertise the course?” a student asked.

Story by Francis Kagolo, The New Vision