Heads of State and Government

TWE’s annual essay about the United States’ commanders-in-chief.

The twelfth annual TWE Presidents' Day quiz. 

A poorly thought out and poorly timed monetary policy sends Nigeria into a tailspin.

How do Africa’s many “leaders for life” do it?

Pope Francis’ diagnosis of the causes of African underdevelopment is simplistic, condescending, and ahistorical.

Ten people who passed away this year who shaped world affairs for better or worse.  

A looming crisis of succession in several African countries indicates a troubling persistence of ego-driven political paternalism.

Much more than material support for the democratic process, Africa—and the developing world—needs the United States to reaffirm its commitment to democratic principles.

TWE’s annual essay about the United States’ commanders-in-chief.

The eleventh annual TWE Presidents' Day quiz. 

Ten people who passed away this year who shaped world affairs for better or worse.

In an op-ed in the Financial Times, Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari highlighted the importance of development in curbing terrorism, a welcome departure from conversations focusing singularly on military might.

In the Democratic Republic of Congo, opaque dealmaking facilitated the transfer of power from Joseph Kabila to Felix Tshisekedi. It is not too early for policymakers to encourage a more democratic process in 2023.

South Africa's Constitutional Court has sentenced former President Jacob Zuma to fifteen months in prison for defying a court order to appear before the Zondo Commission, which is investigating charges of corruption during Zuma’s 2009-2018 presidency. As the court is the highest in the land, Zuma cannot appeal. Nine justices ruled. All agreed that Zuma was guilty; seven favored imprisonment, while two favored a suspended sentence. This is the first time a former chief of state in South Africa has been sentenced to prison. Zuma has five days to turn himself in to the authorities in Johannesburg or Nkandla, his home in KwaZulu-Natal. If he fails to do so, the court has ordered the commissioner of police to arrest him within three days. Holding accountable a former chief of state through a domestic legal and judicial process in Africa appears to be without precedent. Some chiefs of state have been toppled through coups; others removed from office have been tried by international tribunals. In Zuma's case, he was tried and convicted under South African law and by the South African judicial system through an utterly transparent process. Zuma's conviction underscores that South Africa has the continent's strongest culture of the rule of law and independence of the judiciary, both of which underpin a strong democratic trajectory. Zuma retains political support, especially in his home province of KwaZulu-Natal. There could be some concern that his supporters might demonstrate or even try to block his arrest. However, South Africa is under a strict lockdown because of the resurgence of COVID-19, making it difficult to assemble a mob. In 2016, the Public Protector—an office established by the constitution to investigate and remedy improper behavior by government officials—recommended the establishment of a commission to consider allegations of corruption by the Zuma presidency. With no choice, Zuma established the Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of State Capture, headed by Deputy Chief Justice Raymond Zondo. Zuma has persistently stonewalled the work of the commission and refused to appear before it, even when the court ordered him to do so. That is the immediate background to the most recent ruling. President Cyril Ramaphosa defeated Zuma for the leadership of the governing African National Congress and subsequently for the presidency of South Africa in part because Zuma and his administration were seen as corrupt. But, Zuma, a populist in style, has retained significant support in the country and the party, especially among the poor and marginalized and among his fellow Zulus, the largest ethnic group in the country. Zuma and his supporters have sought to thwart Ramaphosa's efforts at state reform. Zuma's conviction and jailing by an independent judiciary is likely to strengthen Ramaphosa's hand as he goes about implementing reforms. The bottom line, however, is that Zuma's conviction and jailing provides a powerful example to other African states of holding their rulers to account. This publication is part of the Diamonstein-Spielvogel Project on the Future of Democracy.

Against a backdrop of growing calls for ethnically based separatism, including in former President Olusegun Obasanjo’s native Yorubaland, the former president in a speech laid out the arguments for maintaining Nigeria’s unity—though not at any cost. Speaking June 9 in the Yoruba heartland city of Abeokuta, where he lives in retirement, Obasanjo argued that Nigerians will fare better staying together: “it is better for Nigeria to remain as one indivisible nation than for each tribe to go its separate way.” The summary of his argument: “I am a strong believer of one Nigeria, but not one Nigeria at any cost, but one Nigeria where every Nigerian can feel proud that he or she has a stake in this country.” Power—that of the Nigerian state and of individual Nigerians—is the heart of his argument. Disintegration would result in successor “weak republics.” In Yorubaland, advocates for separatism look to the creation of an independent, ethnically based Republic of Oduduwa. Obasanjo argues that “if all that we have is Republic of Oduduwa for those who say so, members of that country will be diminished compared to being citizens of Nigeria.” Arguments for separatism center on the big three ethnic groups: the Hausa-Fulani, predominant in the north; the Igbo in the southeast; and the Yoruba in the southwest. Together they are probably a majority—though small—of Nigeria’s population, and they are by no means contained exclusively in the region where they predominate. In addition to the big three, some three hundred other ethnic groups together approach being half of the population, and they are to be found across the country. How to balance the big three and the minorities has been an issue in Nigeria’s governance since the colonial period. The consensus has been that this diversity can best be managed within a federal republic, of which only the form, not the substance, has ever been achieved. Nevertheless, Obasanjo asks what the future would be for the minorities if Nigeria were to break up into three republics dominated respectively by one of the big three. Obasanjo also reminds his audience of the chaos and bloodshed that resulted elsewhere when the genie of ethnic rivalry escaped from the bottle because of the disintegration of a larger state. He cited specific bloody conflicts: India and Pakistan, Sudan and South Sudan, and the civil wars and other conflicts among the successor states of Yugoslavia. In his speech, Obasanjo acknowledged that Nigeria is severely challenged: “any Nigerian who does not feel concerned about the challenges of this country is a human being without being human.” And, “the fact that we are not making Nigeria what God wants it to be is not the fault of God but our fault, particularly the leaders.” But, for Obasanjo, the solution is to work for a united Nigeria, not its disintegration. Obasanjo has presented the central, credible arguments for the unity of Nigeria. Some of his arguments, especially with respect to the decline of state and elite power, are reminiscent of those advanced in other parts of the world by opponents of secession, such as in Catalonia or Scotland or even among those opposed to the departure of the United Kingdom from the European Union. (Often separatism is a popular movement opposed by entrenched elites.) However, Obasanjo’s focus on the dangers of ethnicity and his invoking of God is more characteristic of Nigeria than elsewhere. Throughout his career, Obasanjo has been a Nigerian nationalist. He played a prominent role in the 1967-70 civil war in which the nationalists—for whom he fought—defeated predominantly Igbo efforts to establish an independent Biafra. He was military ruler of Nigeria from 1976 to 1979 and subsequently an ostensibly civilian president from 1999 to 2007 after the nominal restoration of civilian, democratic government. During his civilian presidency, Nigeria played a highly positive role in Africa, promoting a democratic trajectory and ending conflicts. After he left office in 2007, his ambitions to remain president having been thwarted, he retained political influence, especially with the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). But, that party is now in opposition, and Obasanjo’s relationship with the PDP since departing office has been fractious. He left the party in 2015 and started a new political coalition, though it has been a bit-part player in Nigerian politics. Nevertheless, he retains some political influence, and many Nigerians will listen to what he has to say. This publication is part of the Diamonstein-Spielvogel Project on the Future of Democracy.