Hungry, hungry politicos?

As I write, two Commonwealth countries - Pakistan and Kenya - are in turmoil. In the former, the assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto has led to recriminations and protests. Some fear that, with the damage done to polling stations and ballot boxes in Bhutto's home state (amongst other places), it will not be possible to hold an election. In Kenya, there are grave doubts about the legitimacy of the re-election of Mwai Kibaki, the incumbent Kenyan president; rioting across the country, leading to many deaths, has already begun. One friend of mine commented that the tribal differences were beginning to look like the very first makings of a Rwanda-esque tribe versus tribe genocide.

Sad, isn't it, that human beings should act like this towards each other?

And yet, in a way, both events are somehow predictable. Both are the result of systems of government in which there is not a Sovereign/Governor-General presiding over the state and ensuring that the sorts of riots based around political parties do not happen. Both countries were Commonwealth Realms on independence - Pakistan from 1947-56, Kenya from 1963-64. I'll level with you. I don't make any claims that either country has drifted hopelessly since becoming a republic, or even since becoming independent. Nor do I pretend that Benazir Bhutto's assassination absolutely 100% would not have happened (Pakistan's first PM was assassinated in 1951).

What I do claim is that both countries would be more stable under a Crown. Take Pakistan. In March 1956, the monarchy (considered by Pakistani politicians to be an interim feature, part of Pakistan's constitution, which was effectively the Government of India Act 1935) was abolished and a republic proclaimed. Two years later, a military coup overthrew the president. Military rule remained in place until 1971, but was again in force from 1978-88 and, under Gen. Musharraf, from 2001 until the present. That means that, out of 52 years as a republic, 30 - over half - have been under military rule. The longest-serving civilian president, F. I. Chaudhry of the PPP - Bhutto's party - lasted only five years in the office befored being replaced by military rule.

The problem is that presidents are far more transient than Sovereigns. A Sovereign who commands respect, such as Her Majesty the Queen, is far harder to depose by a coup or - as the Australians have shown - by a fair referendum (I wonder why republicans in Commonwealth countries, when citing "fair" referenda on republics, never mention, say, Hendrik Verwoerd's 1960 referendum on a republic in South Africa, or Kwame Nkrumah's referendum in South Africa?). Only one country - Fiji - managed a military coup to depose the Queen. Even then, Her Majesty remains Great Paramount Chief of Fiji (and thus theoretically above the president), whilst there is a chance she may return as Sovereign (or at least I hope so!).

As for Kenya, the presidents since 1964 have been not so much transient as nigh-on dictators. Jomo Kenyatta was Kenya's first PM before becoming president in a shift away from the Westminster system to an executive presidency. Kenyatta remained leader of the Kenyan African National Union and president of Kenya until his death in August 1978. He was replaced by Daniel arap Moi, his Vice-president. President arap Moi remained in power until 2002, when he was succeeded by Mwai Kibaki, the incumbent and allegedly fraudulent (in terms of the election just gone) president. 3 presidents in 43 years? Are you sure that's right?

Two other examples are the aforementioned Dr. Nkrumah of Ghana and Julius Nyerere of Tanganyika/Tanzania. Nkrumah was Ghana's first Prime Minister but in 1960, following a populist referendum, he became executive president. He used Government funds for lavish personal projects (e.g. the Black Star, a yacht-cum-rather-pathetic-frigate for the use of the President). Eventually he was deposed but not before Yarrow Shipbuilders had started work on his yacht (which was later, at the insistence of the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, taken on by the Royal Navy as HMS Mermaid but sold in the latr 1970s to Malaysia as the KD Hang Tuah. It's now a training ship). Like Nkrumah, Nyerere was Tanganyika's first Prime Minister. He then became Tanganyika's first president in 1962 and remained president of what became Tanzania until 1985; since then there have been three more presidents, all of whom have been of the CCM, Tanzania's primary political party and, for a time until 1992, its only legal political party. Nyerere was originally a member of the TANU (same as KANU in meaning!) but became a member of the CCM when TANU and another party, ASP, merged in 1977 to form CCM. 1 political party in 47 years, 4 presidents. A fair and just system for all?

What's striking about these examples is that the men who led the struggles for independence in their respective countries all appear to be power-mad. All are elected, in a wave of populist sentiment, prime ministers of their respective countries. All, within a few years of independence, turn their countries into republics. Instead of remaining as Prime Ministers, they instead become executive presidents, whereupon the problems really start to happen.

And don't let the spiel of, say, Republic (who want a ceremonial president in the UK, may it never happen) fool you with its talk of Heads of Government, impeachment, etc. etc. When Nigeria abandoned the monarchy in 1963, it started out with a ceremonial president (the last Governor-General, as it happens). In 1966 the military deposed the president and instituted executive rule. When civilian rule returned in 1979, a US-inspired system was installed. South Africa, at the height of apartheid, changed the role of president from ceremonial to executive. Uganda's presidents were once ceremonial but are now executive (previous presidents include Milton Obote and Idi Amin, neither of them particularly nice to their own people). Furthermore, even if a written constitution (or, in the case of Commonwealth Realms other than the UK and New Zealand, re-written constitution) were laid down at the time of a republic's founding, who's to say that a ceremonial president with connections to the ruling political party and PM (a former MP or Senator, or a party donor - who amongst any UK readers doesn't know about the cash-for-honours scandal that has permeated deep into the heart of both the Government and the Opposition), even if they are no longer a party member or an MP or somesuch, couldn't wangle a Parliamentary vote in favour of amending the constitution to create an executive presidency? After all, I daresay many of the politicians in Canberra, Wellington, Ottawa, Kingston, Bridgetown, London, etc. etc. would love to be styled as president, and are in the same vein as the power-hungry men behind Ghana, Tanganyika, Kenya and Fiji (amongst others) becoming republics. I doubt that a republic could have adequate safeguards; even the United States has problems with its political system, despite supposedly being one of the greatest countries with one of the greatest political systems on earth.

Republics? Hardly things of the people, if you ask me.

God Save the Queen!