What ails French neocolonialism?

On July 26, the leader of the Democratic Republic of Niger, Mohamed Bazoum, was deposed by his own presidential guard led by Gen Abdourahamane Tchiani, citing reasons that have become all too familiar: Insecurity, poor governance, and endemic poverty.

The response from its former coloniser, France, the United States, and the Economic Community of West African States (Ecowas) was predictable: Restore power to the legitimate leader in a week or face dire consequences.

Besides imposing economic sanctions on one of the world’s poorest countries, the regional bloc also threatened to use force.

Bring it on, thundered the usurpers in Niamey who demonstrably enjoy support from the general citizenry.

Any attack on Niger will be a declaration of war on us as well, responded the military juntas in neighbouring Mali and Burkina Faso who have, in their turn, been threatened in a similar fashion by Ecowas after their own coups, which have all occurred within the past two years. Problem is, these ultimatums have been to no effect in the past.

The point these military juntas were making is that all the civilian rulers they ousted had failed in three significant areas: improving the economic prospects of their people, governance characterised by pervasive official corruption, and preventing radical jihadist groups, ISIS, Al Qaeda, and Boko Haram, from overrunning their countries.

According to the putschists, the reasons why these countries are still as poor as they were when they gained independence has everything to do with their rich mineral resources being exploited by multinational companies belonging to their former coloniser, France.

Very little of that mineral wealth trickles down to its real owners, the citizens, and what does, goes into the pockets of a few ruling elites.

This, of course, sounds familiar to many in the Third World. Niger, for instance, is said to be the seventh largest producer of uranium in the world, but a French company that mines the stuff owns 64 per cent of the shares leaving the country with precious little.

Now that the new rulers have banned the mineral’s export, it is clear the French are livid, especially as the neighbouring Burkina Faso has also followed suit.

What is most worrying to the West is that all these countries have turned to Russia to help them fight off the terror groups, and the superpower has been steadily gaining a foothold in the whole of the Sahel region because it is seen as being more sympathetic to the security needs of those countries.

This, obviously, is not good news for the Western powers but they have only themselves to blame. While they have been content to build military bases in the region ostensibly to fight off the jihadists, their real interest has been to prevent the encroachment of Russia and China on their “territory” in the new Scramble for Africa.

On the other hand, Russia, through its Wagner Group of mercenaries, is willing to put boots on the ground against the marauding jihadists, and the militaries of the four countries have been grateful. This explains the strong anti-French sentiments in the region.

It could also explain why these four countries, Mali, Burkina Faso, Guinea and Niger have had the highest number of coups in the continent in the past 60 years. Is there something about French neocolonialism that is particularly galling to the new generation of impatient soldiers?

It also does not mean that Russian mercenaries, once they entrench themselves in those countries, will have the noblest intentions for the hapless inhabitants: they too are after the extractive wealth, though their approach may be more empathetic to the beleaguered civilians.

The upshot of all this is that the militaries of those four countries have, seemingly, chosen the lesser of two evils and opted for the Russian bear as if they have any idea what is in store for them. Whatever the case, one thing remains clear: Military rule will never be the answer.

* * * *

It is not often that Kenyans get the chance to hear their president tick off members of his Cabinet for their lackadaisical attitude towards duty.

So it came as a pleasant surprise when on Tuesday, President Ruto locked out from State House two of his ministers and a number of principal secretaries for arriving late to a performance contract signing function.

To put the icing on the cake of ignominy, the president denounced those of his appointees who have no idea what is going on in their dockets because they don’t read and therefore can’t answer questions intelligently.

Kenyans have long suspected as much - that some of those fellows who strut around like peacocks spewing orders may not know their stuff. Instead, a few have become quite adept at speaking out of turn, making government policy on the hoof, and poking their noses into issues that don’t concern them.

It is obvious that such people suffer from hubris and may highly benefit from occasional doses of reality. Even worse are those ministers who cannot govern their tongues and repeatedly embarrass the government. The latter should be shown the door with all deliberate speed.

- Mr Ngwiri is a consultant editor; [email protected]