Carthago delenda est.

 

Apologies for the misleading title and photo. This is not a post about Carthage or really Rome for that matter. Nor does Caesar have anything really to do with Carthage historically.

I'm inspired today by the book I'm currently reading: Stacy Schiff's amazing "Cleopatra: A Life" and a news article I read today about Tunisia (modern-day Carthage). Today's article describes how the military leader Gen. Rachid Ammar stood in a square near his office with a bullhorn and gave a speech to reassure protesters.

It reminded me of a scene from Schiff's book where Caesar, after having interjected himself into the Egyptian civil war of 47 B.C., essentially overthrowing a king and facing a rebellion from the Greek-Alexandrians, stood on a palace balcony and gave a speech, to reassure the protesters. Besides the obvious analogy between two Mediterranean military leaders attempting to calm raucous African crowds, Schiff's book provides many more present-day analogies.

I envision Caesar as a modern-day private equity buccaneer type. He took gambles and exploited weaknesses to gain money and power. Schiff describes him as a tireless worker, dictating letters while watching athletic events, constantly moving from battle to battle.

For example, let's look at the years 50 to 47 B.C. In these years Caesar, after returning from conquering Gaul (modern-day France), initiated and won a Roman civil war against Pompey and his supporters. After the initial victory in the civil war, he headed to Spain to fight supporters of Pompey there, leaving a regent in charge of Rome. After winning in Spain, he went to Greece to face Pompey again, defeating the last remnants of his army. He returned to Rome, was appointed dictator then resigned before accepting a one-year term, chased Pompey to Egypt where Pompey was killed by supporters of Ptolemy XIII who was engaged in a civil war with his sister and wife Cleopatra. Caesar interjected on the side of Cleopatra who was in exile but sneaked into the royal palace to visit him. By spring of 47 B.C. Caesar had won the Egyptian civil war for Cleopatra and placed her on a throne and fathered a child.

Even in today's modern world of blackberrys, email, airplanes and ships, such activity seems mind boggling. For me, it is actually somewhat helpful to imagine Caesar as a modern-day business leader, moving from continent to continent completing acquisitions. It's the only way I can conceptualize the frenetic pace of his life, which to be honest doesn't do it justice because Caesar didn't have airplanes or email or telephones.

He was notorious for often arriving in places before the messengers or troops that were supposed to announce his arrival and make preparations. He was married three times without children (none of his marriages appeared to be for love) before seemingly settling down (for six months) with an exotic mistress much younger than him. He was balding with an obvious comb over. And he ended up jeopardizing his entire career, country (and life) with reckless personal behavior and by spending an incredible amount of time and money colonizing the most wealthiest kingdom in the ancient world.

The ultimate mid-life crisis.

So much of what we think is novel or new to our world, our sociology, our psychology, is actually very old. I've enjoyed listening to the BBC's "A History of the World" series but they get some of it wrong. It points to the mechanical galleon from the 16th century to signify the coming of the mechanical period and people's understanding of machinery. But the Egyptians had been using machines to wow for over a thousand years by the 16th century AD. We think the cut throat mid-life Western businessman ethos is relevant only within our society but Caesar shows us this personality type was known to the ancients.

So the crowds seemingly still scream "Carthago delenda est" and military leaders still climb balconies to calm crowds. As it says in Ecclesiastes 1, chapter 9: "What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun."

Interesting reading:

China Grooming Deft Politician as Next Leader, Edward Wong and Jonathan Ansfield, NYTimes.

Reinventing Tunisia at Record Speed, Mathieu von Rohr and Volkhard Windfuhr, Der Spiegel.

Equality, unity or both?

Today voting starting in southern Sudan on a referendum for independence. Having read a little commentary on the issue and having engaged in a few conversations with friends, I began to wonder if the referendum will portend a dramatic shift in African politics.

There are many mismanaged democracies in Africa and perhaps the only time suffrage has been used to address social and economic inequalities in the post-colonial period was the election of Nelson Mandela in 1994. And that election was more of a victory against apartheid, a dying and economically unsustainable system, which by 1991 had galvanized world opinion and policy. It was not an election where Africans, controlling their own destiny, removed one universally elected government for another that could better deal with economic and social injustice (although South Africa's most recent election could have such implications). It was a worldwide movement largely viewed through the colonial lens of oppressed and oppressor.

In many ways, the oppressed and oppressors in Africa are now all Africans. And in most instances, the oppressed arguably have an electoral voice. Democracy should provide at least some systematic redress for badly governed nations. But it doesn't, why?

Because Africa is trapped within a confusing and backwards political order. No place demonstrates this more than the Sudan. The people in southern Sudan never viewed themselves as being in political allegiance with the north. Their association as one Sudan is an anachronism of colonialism and political decisions made in 1956 when the British gave most of the political power to the north. Further complicating the situation is the fact that the south itself is not one politically coherent entity.

How does democracy work with so many competing agendas, histories, languages? Elections become not paths to right social and economic wrongs but opportunities to see that your tribe or region gets its fair shake. Politicians and officials have little allegiance to the nation, which in recent memory was nothing but arbitrary borders on a map, but retain most of their sympathies and efforts for their home regions and groups. Elections become another means of civil war with rampant disenfranchisement and vote rigging common.

There are no political ideologies running through most African elections today. There is no "jobs" agenda, "anti-poverty" agenda (but see developing elections in Nigeria). Instead, most nations are consumed with the "northern" or "eastern" or "southern" agenda. Not that there aren't serious African leaders tackling important issues in government but during its elections Africa is still fighting against the borders it was given. There are notable exceptions, for instance Rwanda but even its democracy is traumatized and colored by the recent genocide. That's why the election in Sudan is being hailed across the world. Finally, we have an another African election that matters, that is about something real, equality, freedom.

A commentary by Mo Ibrahim in last week's Financial Times, "Sudan is a warning to all of Africa" was thought-provoking precisely because it raises the question of whether this type of election could change the face of African politics. One wonders what the continent would have looked like without its colonial borders. Africa is a continent of hundreds of peoples and languages and thousands of villages. Perhaps a continent of a thousand nations would be more peaceful and harmonized. Personally, I doubt this would have happened. Even absent colonialism, Africa would have become engulfed in wider geopolitical struggles and arbitrary borders would still have been established, even if less disruptive and disorganized than current ones.

But what if other people, instead of resorting to civil war, rigging elections, protests, opted for electoral separation? Would nations like Nigeria be more peaceful and successful if its different regions and groups broke off politically? The people in these countries have a long history of trade, intermarriage and peaceful cooperation. Why couldn't they continue this tradition as separate political entities? In today's economic order, the size of markets matter but Europe demonstrates, albeit not that convincingly at the moment, that politically distinct entities can form economic unions. Why not Africa?

If you speak with many people in Côte d'Ivoire about the recent election, a lot of their comments are tinged with the tribalism that engulfs most African politics. Why can't Côte d'Ivoire establish a devolved or federalist style government built around monetary and economic cooperation?

The referendum in Sudan gives questions like these a much louder echo chamber as more groups, especially oppressed or disenfranchised minorities raise their hands and ask why not us?

Interesting reading:
The battle is on for the soul of the Tory party, Janet Daley, Daily Telegraph.
Washington concerned as Turkey is leaving the West, Ariel Cohen, Daily News & Economic Review.
Africa's Hour, James Traub, Foreign Policy.