The UNITA Solution

Angolans and those who have followed the turbulent and violent history of that country might have taken in a deep breath and heaved a heavy sigh of relief when they heard that the leader of UNITA, the main opposition party in Angola, had conceded defeat in their recent polls.

“Despite everything that happened, the Unita leadership accepts the election results and hopes the winning party, MPLA, will govern in the interest of all Angolans,” the Unita leader, Isaias Samakuva, said in a statement on Monday, August 8, 2008 to put to rest any fears that Angola would go back to war if there should be any dispute after the elections, the first to be held since 1992 and seen to be a crucial step towards the country's recovery from decades of war.

There was general apprehension and fear during the run-up to the election following accusations that MPLA, the government party, was paying bribes and using the security agencies to intimidate its opponents, who are mainly members of UNITA.

With the history of the continent where violence always erupted after any electoral process and the recent bitter experience of Kenya yet to recede from memory, there were genuine fears that Angola, which has spent the greater part of its independent life on war, could degenerate into another battlefield of senseless killings.

When the Portuguese colonialists hurriedly left the country in 1975 under the guise of granting Angola independence, the well-endowed country, in terms of natural resources, exploded into civil war.

The Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA), under the leadership of Dr Agostino Neto, had to battle the National Front for the Liberation of Angola (FNLA), under Holden Roberto and the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA) under Dr Jonas Savimbi for territorial control.

It did not take long for the FNLA to fizzle out, but UNITA, with its anti-Communist badge, drew a lot of support from the US and its Western allies to counter MPLA, which drew its support from the then Soviet Union and its allies.

For nearly 17 years, Angola became an ideological battle ground in the superpower rivalry of the Cold War era.

 Bolstered by money coming from the diamond trade that UNITA controlled, Savimbi ignored all peace overtures until the collapse of the Soviet Empire in 1990, which brought the bitter Cold War to an end.

In 1992, after many attempts at peace making, Angola held its first UN-certified elections, the results of which were disputed by Jonas Savimbi and his UNITA movement and the country was plunged into civil war again.

Fresh attempts culminated in the signing of the Lusaka Peace Accord in 1994, which brought about some appreciable level of peace until 1998, when Savimbi, after repeated violations of the peace accord, went back to war.

The end came on February 22, 2002, when government troops killed Savimbi. The death of the warlord was followed six weeks later with the signing of a ceasefire agreement with UNITA rebels.

 That signalled the end of a bitter civil war that lasted nearly 30 years and caused the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives and the dissipation of natural resources on the war effort by both sides.

The recent elections were generally seen as a watershed in Angolan politics, which will either consolidate its democracy or trigger another bout of civil conflict.

Even though the observer mission from the Southern Africa Development Co-operation (SADC) declared that the polls had been transparent and peaceful, there were various infractions typical of all elections conducted on the continent.

And with combatants ready to go back for their arms, there were fears that the Kenya experience would pale into insignificance, if political leaders did not maintain cool heads.

Thank God, the leadership of UNITA did not lose sight of the hardships war had unleashed on their country and its people and, therefore, decided to choose the path of accommodation and tolerance instead of confrontation and violence.

Angola is very rich in terms of natural resources. It is now taking over from Nigeria as sub-Saharan Africa's largest oil exporter.

 It is also rich in diamonds, iron ore, phosphate, copper, gold, bauxite, uranium and timber.

Apart from the decades of war that has drained a considerable amount of funds, Angola, like most African countries, could not escape the scourge of massive corruption in official circles.

According to International Monetary Fund (IMF) sources, more than US$4 billion got missing from the national treasury over a six-year period.

All the same, it has the potential to emerge as one of Africa's strongest economies once it has attained political stability. And this is what the UNITA gesture has offered.

We in Ghana have only heard of war or seen its devastation via the electronic media.

We have not gone beyond isolated ethnic and chieftaincy skirmishes and so we may not appreciate the blessings of peace until it fades away on the altar of intransigence, intolerance and political arrogance.

I have heard almost all the political leaders proclaiming their commitment to peace and tolerance with almost each of them trying to distance themselves from political violence.

Meanwhile, none has condemned violence committed in their name or on their behalf.

Violence is not only about machetes, guns or bows and arrows. Violence could mean verbal assaults that could incite people to physical violence.

It is hypocritical for political leaders to speak against violence and preach virtue, while operating radio stations whose specific assignment is to launch provocative attacks on political opponents.

It does not augur well for tolerance and peace, if newspapers are established not to inform, educate or entertain but to write scandalous things about others and sometimes fan ethnic and tribal sentiments.

We will not be achieving our objective of a peaceful election, if we are prepared to pay huge sums of money to people whose business it is to move from one radio or television station to another on a smear campaign against perceived political opponents.

Our situation may not be better, if we allow those who have become known as serial callers to use the medium of phone-in programmes to insult others, rake old wounds and indulge in other verbal attacks that have the potential of inciting people to violence.

 It is in this vein that the concern raised by the security agencies last Wednesday about the abuse of phone-in programmes should be addressed seriously by the hosts of these programmes.

The power of the FM radio stations could be exploited to galvanise the people into action that will bring progress to this nation.

In the same way it could be exploited for negative things. That is why political leaders who claim to be committed to the peace and progress of this country should desist from sponsoring people to fan hatred and rancour through the media of radio and television.

The various newspapers that owe allegiance to political parties should be circumspect about the things they publish.

They may be scoring high marks with their fanatics but unconsciously they are putting the future of this country in jeopardy.

On their political platforms, politicians are expect to tell us what they can do for us as a people to improve our lot, instead of dwelling on what others failed to do, could not do or had done.

History is good to guide us, but it does not benefit us if we continue to think in the past.

It is unfortunate that the political game has become a battle. But it has something to do with how we do our politics here.

We take political power to mean power to destroy, undermine and vilify perceived opponents who are seen as enemies.

We see it as an opportunity to amass wealth at the expense of the country's development.

We see it as a superiority contest, so whoever wins must prove how powerful he/she is.

So what should have been a national exercise to pick the most dedicated and committed citizens to push this nation forward has become a fight for survival, since winning means a transition from poverty and misery to wealth and opulence, while losing means deprivation and suffering.

If really there is no selfish motives for running for political office, and the mission is only to translate a vision that would transform this country into a prosperous nation, we would be careful the way we talk and behave.

We would realise that it does not pay to preside over a divided and disgruntled people. We would realise that the best President is the one loved by all and hated by none.

We expect that from now on, political leaders could boldly disassociate themselves from foul statements and dastardly acts that are made or committed in apparent support of them. Then we will stand convinced by their proclamations that they stand for peace.

Angolans had a painful history to guide them. That was why it was easy for them to let sleeping dogs to lie.

Nigeria had the memories of a bitter civil war as a guide that was why they tolerated the Yar'dua Verdict, even though it was generally acknowledged that the 2007 general election in that country was seriously flawed.

 Cote d'Ivoire never had the benefit of history as a guide so when it came, it took everybody by surprise. Kenya never had a serious political problem until the elections of December, 2007.

We, in Ghana, can learn from the experiences of others, instead of deluding ourselves into believing that we are unique and insulated from violence.

That is why we must tread cautiously.

Again, in conceding defeat, the UNITA leader said something that is also relevant to our circumstances.

He expressed the hope that: “The MPLA will govern in the interest of all Angolans.”

The philosophy of winner-takes-it-all, which is obvious in our politics should be discarded.

That is the only way people will not equate elections to the law of the jungle — survival of the fittest — and, therefore, will do anything in pursuit of victory.