CONTENTS | ANB-BIA HOMEPAGE | WEEKLY NEWS
|
Mauritania |
DEMOCRACY
After the results of the October 2001 municipal and parliamentary, it was thought that Mauritania had embarked on the irreversible process of democratisation. But behold, a new banning order against a political party; and the prisons continue to hold political prisoners
Action for Change (AC) — an opposition party led by a «Haratine» (Editor’s note: Black Moors, descendants of slaves), Messaoud Ould Boulkheir, was dissolved on 2 January 2002 during the first meeting in the New Year of the Council of Ministers. The government took this measure because of a report prepared by the Ministry of the Interior, in which the AC is defined as «a party whose activities and behaviour undermines the supreme interests of the nation, and by its racist and extremist language, is a threat to national unity.» Thus, this measure is one of the consequences which was expected by everybody after the relatively transparent elections, which were welcomed by all of Mauritania’s politicians as well as by the country’s donor partners.
AC proved to be the largest opposition party in the 19-26 October 2001 elections, and became the principal challenger to the governing Republican Democratic Social Party (PRDS), led by the President of the Republic, Maaouiya Ould Sid’ Ahmed Taya. Nationwide, it had received 5.37% of the vote in the first round of voting. In parliament it had four Members including Messaoud. It had won four local councils, including three in Nouakchott, the capital.
Action for Change
Founded in 1995 by dissidents of the former Union of Democratic Forces, AC was a political front which claimed to speak for the underprivileged classes, and fight for social justice. The problem of slavery (which still continues in Mauritania), and the ethnic purges of 1990 and 1991, figured as priorities in the party’s political and social programme. It was the raising of these issues in the National Assembly that led the Mauritanian government to ban the party. Since the pre-recorded debates were transmitted by national television, a large section of people began to be aware of the message of this defenceless party. Some people even think that the government took this measure, to further smother the party by depriving it of the five million ouguiya (about 200,000 euro) which it should receive by law, in proportion to its election results.
AC made its voice heard particularly in the large urban centres: Nouakchott, the capital, where it has two Members of Parliament (MP)s, three mayors and 49 municipal councillors; Nouadhibou, the business capital, where it has one MP, and 9 municipal councillors; Sélibaby (South) where it has one MP and the mayor; and Rosso (South) where it has ten municipal councillors out of 21.
Regarded by some as a radical party, and compared by others to South Africa’s ANC during the Apartheid era, AC drew all the attention of the government from the end of the elections to the opening of the 2001-2002 parliamentary session. That is why its banning was not too much of a surprise for political observers, even if it struck a severe blow to Mauritanian democracy.
Since the beginning of the democratic process in 1991, this is the third political party to be banned. The National Avant-Garde, an Arab nationalist party, was the first victim in August 1999, followed by the Union of Democratic Forces in October 2000.
What about the 2003 presidential elections?
Reactions to the AC‘s banning were slow in coming, but some were very violent. The day following the party’s banning, the following graffiti appeared on a notice board in the University of Nouakchott: «There is no difference between Ariel Sharon, Hitler and Ould Taya. But it is said all things come to an end. Otherwise, who would have imagined that presidents like Mobutu, Kabila, Peter Botta, Milosevic and Bokassa would have left power in disgrace. Doubtless we have to fear the worst, for the one we have as head of our government has not yet woken up. His time will come soon!»
The Opposition, organised under the banner of the Front of Opposition Parties (FPO), has also reacted strongly, pointing to the government’s intentions to neutralise any political force capable of challenging the party in power, in the run up to the presidential election at the end of 2002. Whilst across the nation, there have been plenty of protests, on the international scene, no foreign government has condemned this measure. The silence of foreign governments, particularly France and the United States, has been explained by Mauritania’s declaration that it will fight against terrorism in all its forms. Besides, the words used were well chosen to justify the decision, by calling the AC «an extremist and racist party».
Aware of the danger for the future of democracy in their country, opposition leaders are already looking for ways of strengthening their unity. The FPO, which included only AC, the Popular Front (whose president has been in jail since 8 April 2001) and the Popular Progressive Front, have begun negotiations to be included in the Alliance of Demographic Forces (RFD) and the Union of Forces for Progress.
In mid-January, the RFD‘s presidency was entrusted to Mr Ahmed Ould Daddah, Leader of the Union of Democratic Forces/New Era, which was dissolved in October 2000. He failed in an attempt to become President in 1992; now he could be the only serious opposition candidate to oppose the sitting President in the run-up to the 2003 election. Will he have the support of all the opposition parties?
The cost of electoral transparency
Since the La Baule Conference, relations between the West and Third World Countries is partly based on the degree of democratic progress achieved by the latter. In the West, it is said that development aid is tied to this progress. However, Mauritania’s case is somewhat paradoxical. In fact, human rights’ violations and lack of respect for political and public liberty (banning of political parties, confiscation of independent newspapers) are rarely taken into account in this context. Cooperation between Mauritania and its donor colleagues is in a very healthy state. Last December, the World Bank and the IMF gave the Mauritanian government a grant of 412 million dollars to finance programmes for combatting poverty. The United States has opened is economic frontiers to Mauritania, by giving it «a most favoured nation status» for trade. With the Europeans, there is also a honeymoon period, ever since the renewal of fishing rights treaty on 1 August 2001. The 430 million Euro expected from Europe during the next five years is proof of the excellent cooperation between Mauritania and the European Union, which was particularly pleased with the elections in October 2001 and praised the transparency with which they were conducted.
Those elections renewed Mauritania’s political scene and began the easing of tension in the democratic process. But with the AC‘s dissolution, the whole democratic process has been called into question. Thanks to the introduction of a national (forgery proof) identity card, the promise to finance political parties which obtained 1% of the national vote and the relative neutrality of the authorities, twelve political parties, representing a mixture of tendencies, contested the election. Will the coming presidential election provoke the same keen interest? The Opposition entered the National Assembly with eleven MPs representing four parties, and snatched from the presidential majority 13 local authorities, six of them in Nouakchott. How will they do in the Presidential elections?
How is it that a country which has put in place all those measures to improve the democratic process, can now go backwards by dissolving political parties? It must doubtless have had the blessing of Washington and Brussels.
ENGLISH CONTENTS | ANB-BIA HOMEPAGE | WEEKLY NEWS
PeaceLink 2002 - Reproduction authorised, with usual acknowledgement