by Eze Eluchie,
With the
probable exception of levying war on or physical occupation of a country,
interference with intent to influence whosoever gets to ascend into leadership,
from foreign authorities, on the selection process(es) of any given country’s
leadership stands out as the worst disrespect and abuse of sovereignty any
country can suffer from another. By seeking to decide for a country who gets to
rule over them, the interfering country not only seeks to place itself in the
manner of a colonial authority but worse still, it seeks that notorious
position whilst at the same time creating an impression on the minds of the
nationals of the country whose (s)election process has been interfered with,
that the externally imposed stooge is a product of local preferences and
processes.
The practice
of one State seeking to decide who rules over other States is certainly not a
new vocation; it is a vile practice dating back centuries but which has, with
increased international interaction and collaboration amongst states, become a
common feature of international relations and the so-called ‘new world order’.
Countries with a focused and conscious leadership will ordinarily want other
countries they share borders with to be governed by entities who are, at the
very least, of like minds, or where possible, of a subservient disposition.
With increased globalization, the borders of any given country is now far
beyond its mere physical borders, extending to countries far removed from its territory
but with which it has sizable relationships. As the meaning of ‘borders’ has
been stretched under the concept of globalization, so also has the extent to
which countries wish to interfere in the leadership (s)election processes been
stretched to, in some instances, to virtually any country in the world.
Foreign
interference in leadership (s)election processes can be subtle or brazen,
intellectual or military or an admixture of several styles. Often times, a
majority of the citizens of the territory whose leadership (s)election process
is being interfered with by foreign authorities may be unaware of such
interferences. For instance, the fact that the erstwhile colonial overlords of
African countries have interfered in the leadership (s)election processes of
the now ‘independent’ African States has been one of the worst guarded secrets
in International Affairs: whilst the British routinely interfere in their
former territories (Anglophone African countries), the French play same role in
the Francophone African countries. These
interferences usually comes in the form of reports of so-called ‘international
election monitoring and observer missions’ which subtly issue real threats when
results of polls do not toe the line of the colonial overlords and simply look
the other way with such comments as ‘though there were pockets of
irregularities, such irregularities do not impugn the integrity of the
process’, if the ‘overlords’ preferred was able to emerge victorious despite
palpable local wishes to the contrary. At other instances, military
interventions and coups are instigated to scuttle a regime deemed not-compliant
and ensure the emergence of stooges.
Notorious
instances of foreign interference in the leadership (s)election process of countries
include the United States and Belgian instigated assassination of Patrice
Lumumba of Congo DRC, and the imposition of a stooge, Mobutu Sese Seko in his
stead in 1966. Congo DRC is yet to recover from the ensuing disaster unleashed
by the foreign interference as war and strive now bedevil what is universally
recognized as a country that ought to, on account of its resources, have been a
leading and industrial light in the African continent. The scuttling of the
electoral victory of the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) during the 1991 Algerian
elections and the imposition of a more compliant military junta by foreign
authorities has served, till date, to deepen distrust of the democratic process
by Islamists across Arabia.
The 2015
Presidential elections in Nigeria is yet a more recent instance of foreign
intervention in the leadership (s)election process of countries. In addition to
unwarrantedly sending key officials of its administration to ‘caution’ Nigerian
authorities over ‘interfering in Nigerian elections’, the United States adopted
policies and actions that showed it (and by extension the amorphous ‘international
community’) would not accommodate the then incumbent administration if it
emerged victorious in the elections. The icing on the ‘foreign interference’
cake during the Nigerian 2015 Presidential elections was the visit, a few days
to the 2015 elections, by the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court,
Ms. Fatou Bensouda, to disrespectfully and flagrantly threaten the incumbent
authority in Nigeria with ‘investigation and prosecution’ before the ICC in the
event of any post-election violence. The quantum of threats scared the living
daylights out of then incumbent President, Goodluck Jonathan, who did not even
bother for definitive results to be released before conceding defeat to his
main adversary, despite evidence of widespread debilitating electoral fraud
that would have truncated the election process.
It is in the
light of the foregoing that one appreciates and understands the angst and
indignation expressed by United States President, Barack Obama, and a wide
array of US citizens and politicians from diverse political parties and their
security establishments in response to credible and highly probably evidence of
foreign interference in the 2016 US Presidential elections. The likelihood that the major global
superpower would be ruled by a person who probably got into office not solely
on the basis of the desires of the American people but rather with support from
elsewhere is most worrisome. The inherent and underlying insult and utter lack
of respect of a states sovereignty embedded in foreign interference in the US
presidential elections stank to the heavens! This is, however, exactly the same
sentiments felt by discerning citizens of those countries whose leadership has
been determined by foreign authorities for quite awhile.
The fundamental
concept of mutual respect for the sovereignty of states upon which inter-state
relations is predicated upon is fatally assaulted when foreign authorities take
it upon themselves to interfere in the leadership (s)election processes of
other states. It is hoped that states will desist from the urge interfere in
the leadership (s)election processes of other states and when such allegations
of interfering with other countries electoral process is established, there
ought to be an international mechanism to sanction the erring state.
Picture: Patrice
Lumumba (victim of 1960 foreign interference in Congo DRC) and Donald Trump
(supposed beneficiary of Russian interference in US 2016 presidential
elections).
