Protests across the globe are growing at a worrisome rate. The right to fight for your beliefs and rights has now become a turning point worldwide where the ordinary citizen is eager to get what it deserves. Protests in Hong Kong have wreaked havoc. Lebanon has also seen its fair share of demonstrations over the course of the last few weeks. Catalonians are forcing the Spanish government to give in to their demands. Where some protests may focus on the removal of the government for its policies, in other places, protests have poured in due to economic collapses. At this point in time, we are seeing enraged citizens crying, fighting and even dying for what they believe in. Lebanon and Iraq are seeing locals pour onto the streets due to the government’s failure to provide them with basic services and they’re all demanding the removal of the political elite. Broken promises, ineffective policies and a future with no success in sight will only result in the outburst of anger unless concrete changes are made.

Turning our focus from the Asian continent, thousands of kilometres away in South America, a similar picture is being painted. Violent demonstrations in Bolivia, Chile and Ecuador have forced international observers to highlight what the problems are. Whenever protests arise, there are many things that need to be discussed. There’s always an underlying issue which is the root of the problem. At times, it may be the government taking certain decisions that may collide with the interests of its people. Sometimes, external factors may also play a huge role. However, the main idea is the lack of facilitation on part of the government. The South American continent has seen just that.

In Bolivia, where President Evo Morales successfully ruled for three terms, saw the end of his rule after weeks-long protests. Morales thought he could get the better of his people but his rush towards securing a fourth term ended in misery after he bowed down to military pressure. What Morales did was try to cover up an election which had failed. He claimed victory before the election could go to a second-round runoff. Morales, the country’s first indigenous President can be credited with bringing more representation to his people, unfolding an economic boom for the country and curbing inflation. We must agree that he brought a change in the living standards of many Bolivians but what really brought the nation to the edge started in 2016. The president at the time tried to abolish presidential limits which signalled his move towards authoritarianism. Morales’ opposition right-wing Carlos Mela asked supporters to take to the streets to deny Morales victory and thus protests began where at least three people were killed and hundreds others injured. In Bolivia, people stood up to make sure they were guaranteed the necessary changes.

Moving to Chile, a country famous for its natural resources, especially copper. It all began when the government decided to increase the fares of public transportation. This initiated a violent order of protests on October 18, where thousands stepped on the streets to not only ask the government to repeal the changes but to also demand for better social services. Chileans are demanding better education, the reduction in income inequality and access to better healthcare. Protesters in the country say that the neoliberal economic model gives more priority to the rich who are able to afford better private education and healthcare, leaving the poor at the edge of crisis. The protests also forced the cancellation of two major international summits which came as a huge blow to the country which has not seen such protests in a long time. They are now asking for the replacement of a constitutional charter which was penned by dictator Pinochet in 1980. This would enable the privatization of many basic utilities which Chileans believe would reduce the disparity between the rich and the poor.

In Ecuador, the lifting of state fuel subsidies prompted violent reaction from the masses. President Moreno, after seeing the anger that fueled within the hearts of protesters, declared an emergency to ensure things would work appropriately. Ecuador has also seen its fair share of disparities and this time what surfaced was the one between the rural areas and cities. The indigenous group CONAIE and its leaders have also given the government an ultimatum to accept their demands which they have been trying to accomplish for a very long time.

The problems in South America, which continue to grow whether they revolve around the economy or the improvement of basic living standards, are those which will take a long time to quell. If leaders decide authoritative measures aren’t a good idea and listening to the citizens is a better choice, not only the economy, the potential future of these states will also be secured.

L'articolo Failure of the Neo-Liberal Economic Model in South America proviene da InsideOver.

The President of Guinea, Alpha Conde, has sought an extension for his presidential mandate. He follows a long list of African presidents who have sought out ways to extend their two-term presidency.

Last week, a Guinean court jailed opposition and protest leaders for organising rallies against Conde seeking a third-term. Article 10 of the Guinean Constitution reads that “all citizens have the right of demonstration [manifestation] and procession. In July 2018, Conde imposed a general ban on demonstrations in the country, granting himself power to imprison those who exercise their constitutionally guaranteed rights.

Last month, Conde asked his government to look into drafting a possible new constitution. Under this new constitution, the 81-year-old would be able to run for a third term, after his second term expires next year.

Conde’s actions have violated both Article 10 of the Guinean Constitution and Article 4 of the African Union Constitution which legally binds African nations to function by “condemnation and rejection of unconstitutional changes of government”. While local critics have been outspoken against Conde, the African Union remains silent.

“Third-termism”, as it is called, is Africa’s constitutional failure. Opposition leader and former Prime Minister of Guinea, Cellou Dalein Diallo, of the Union des Forces Democratiques de Guinee (UFDG), said that the opposition is united and “massively mobilised”.

“We must prevent the promotion of the new constitution of the third term. The day Alpha Conde will take a decree to say we are going to the referendum is the day everyone will get things started at their towns, borders, neighbourhoods. That is the motto … because we are in the legality and he is in the illegality.

“They must be treated as people who are outlaws,” he continued.

While the African Union has been silent, the Russian ambassador to Guinea, Alexander Bregadze, said in January that, “Constitutions are not Bibles or Qurans, they are there to adapt to reality, not the other way round.”

In the context of Conde’s third-termism, the African Union’s silence is especially troubling.

“Street protests probably are insufficient on their own to thwart a third term bid,” Judd Devermont, Africa programme director at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) said.

“Usually, it requires opposition unity, ruling party defections, and international community engagement to foil a term extension gambit. That’s what happened in Nigeria in 2006 and Burkina Faso in 2014. If Conde goes forward with a referendum, he can fiddle with the results to tilt the vote in his favour.”

The African Union has set a precedent of allowing its member leaders to break Article 4 of its constitution. Cameroon’s Paul Biya, Sub-Saharan Africa’s oldest leader, was re-elected for a seventh term last year, after coming into power in 1982. Immediately after the election, eighteen legal challenges to the election were filed. Cameroon’s council – appointed by Biya – rejected all eighteen.

Like Conde, under Biya’s 36-year rule, opposition rallies are banned and their leaders imprisoned.

The AU’s lack of criticism and action against presidents like Conde, Biya and Burundi’s Pierre Nkurunziza shows condonation of unconstitutional illegality by its members.

Many other AU leaders have resisted their terms limits, with no critical sanctions or bans undertaken by the AU. They include: Uganda’s Yoweri Museveni, Chad’s Idriss Derby, Djibouti’s Ismail Omar Guelleh, Togo’s Faure Gnassingbe, Rwanda’s Paul Kagame, Congo Republic’s Denis Sassou Nguesso, Ivory Coast’s Alassane Ouattara and Comoros’ Azali Assoumani. All eleven leaders are heads of states and government of the Member States of the Constitutive Act of the African Union.

Third-termism is not just an African problem. If the AU refuses to tackle autocracy among non-democratically-elected leaders, the problem will not only persist but grow.

The world cannot survive without Africa. The continent’s resources (minerals, food and oil) are indispensable to the survival of both the human population and the world economy. Although economically poor, Africa is incredibly important on the world stage. Its actions have a ripple effect on the political world stage.

The Russian Ambassador, Alexander Bregadze’s reply to the Guinean constitution being changed reveals Russian support for third-Termism. Indeed, Vladimir Putin’s licentious rewording of the Russian constitution shares similarities with those of African leaders’. ‘The permission of non-democratic, unconstitutional leaderships by leaders who are legally bound to joint accountability is a troubling step for the future of democracy worldwide.

L'articolo African Leaders’ “Third-Termism” is Destroying Global Democracy proviene da InsideOver.

Hong Kong’s government showed its first signs of cracking on Tuesday when Chief Executive Carrie Lam withdrew the controversial extradition bill. Yet even though she removed the legislation which sparked several months of protests, the action is unlikely to quell the opposition which had previously adopted a list of five demands. 

Blinking

Now in its fourteenth week, protests have grown increasingly violent. Aside from a widely-reported incident at the Hong Kong airport where a group of protestors attacked a man whom they accused of being an undercover policeman, activists have been mostly peaceful. Hong Kong law enforcement, however, has gradually increased the severity of methods designed to suppress the protests. 

Even so, neither side has blinked until Tuesday when Lam made the announced the recension of the bill in television broadcast. 

“The government will formally withdraw the bill to fully allay public concerns,” Lam declared. “Lingering violence is damaging the very foundations of our society, especially the rule of law.”

Furthermore, Lam said she would add two more representatives to a council tasked with investigating complaints against law enforcement personnel. The oversight group is not new: it was created 20 years ago, which raises questions about why calls for investigations of police brutality have gone unanswered until Tuesday. Hong Kong police have on several occasions been recorded on video preventing emergency medical responders from reaching injured protestors, attempted to gouge an activist’s eyes, and raided a subway car, bludgeoning its occupants without mercy.

While her willingness to have the council look into these acts in addition to the tear-gassing, paint-marking, and arresting of peaceful demonstrators may seem like another concession to the five demands, it is not being viewed as such. Critically, the governing council has long been accused of bias because it is not an independent body and as seen during Lam’s televised statement, her administration has the power to choose its members. She continues to deny the right to a third-party investigation.

Lam also vowed to reach out to “people from all walks of life” while engaging the citizens of Hong Kong in civil discourse, but it is unknown how much she could gain from such talks given the firm stance of the protestors. While many international observers predicted a Beijing-led military suppression on the horizon, few believed Lam would be the first to relent. 

Unstoppable Force? 

The ancient unstoppable force paradox originated in the ancient philosophical book Han Feizi written by Chinese author Han Fei. Fei was the first to pose the question, “What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?” He termed the paradox ‘矛盾,’ pronounced as ‘máodùn’ which translates to “contradiction” or ‘spear-shield.’

It is fitting that such an enigma came from China as it perfectly encapsulates the present ordeal. For the entire summer, the protestors have essentially been spears, unstoppable forces against the government shield or immovable object. Even though Lam conceded the primary demand to remove the extradition bill in its entirety, it will not stop the immovable force nor will her government agree to the full list of requirements.

In addition to the removal of the bill, protestors call for a government order to prohibit the labelling of protests as ‘riots,’ an independent inquiry into police actions, the complete release and amnesty for arrested protestors, and democratic elections. Hong Kong citizens are unlikely to ever gain more electoral rights, especially with the city destined to return to Beijing-rule in a few decades. 

“The damage has been done. The scars and wounds are still bleeding,” said Claudia Mo a pro-democracy legislator. “She thinks she can use a garden hose to put out a hill fire. That’s not going to be acceptable.”

Another Hong Kong legislator, Eddie Chu, also supported the continuation of protests declaring, “We will change our slogan to ‘Four key demands, we will accept nothing less.’” 

Fake Sincerity?

There are concerns among some activists that if they accept Lam’s offer, her government will fiercely roll-back civil liberties as soon as protestors return to their homes. 

“Whenever there are signs of sending a palm branch, they always come with a far tighter grip on exercising civil rights,” said Joshua Wong, a student protestor. “They have conceded nothing in fact, and a full-scale clampdown is on the way.”

Lam surprised many when she agreed to the principle demand of removing the extradition bill in its entirety, pledging to never to revive it. Unfortunately for the Hong Kong and Beijing governments, the time for this concession passed long ago. Protestors now feel part of something larger than themselves, and possibly larger than the government itself. They have not grown weary, only more steadfast in their resolve. 

L'articolo Carrie Lam removes extradition bill, but why won’t protestors stop? proviene da InsideOver.