Presidency in Africa

Why are there many presidents in Africa? This is the question I want to ask today. I’m not talking about academic matters, but more conspiratorial perspective here. There’d be explanations and theories for it, but why presidency? My answer is simple, “Because a president can have more power on affairs of country”. So why should it be more powerful than other political forms? My answer is simple, “Because it’s easy to control a country from outside. Namely all you need to do is to control a president in order to control a country”. Presidency in Africa is the symbol of neo-imperialism to my eyes. Independence, president, development, democracy, they’re all beautiful words but in reality “they” exploit Africa in the name of independent; “they” rob Africa in the name of president; “they” destroy Africa in the name of development, and “they” trick Africa in the name of democracy.  

Nigeria is the biggest country of producing oil in Africa, but unbelievably there is no oil refinery in the country so they must buy petrol from “them”. Why the president of Nigeria doesn’t make a refinery? My answer is simple because he’s an agent sent by “them”. Or why western countries don’t help Nigeria make a refinery? My answer is simple because the West doesn’t want Africa to have power in any economical activities. Or why any external commercial refinery companies don’t make a refinery in Nigeria? My answer is simple because someone interferes to make an oil refinery with invisible power, which would never come out to mass media and textbooks. If there were an oil refinery in Nigeria, its neighboring countries would profit from it to a great degree. But it won’t happen, because it means that some western countries lose their market in Africa. Therefore “they” need their branches and branch managers to control internal affairs in the name of “president”.

And when western countries make an international trade treaty with developing countries, they try to sign it in the form of “bilateral treaty”, which is a treaty strictly between two state parties, and in which they can easily manipulate decision making with the power of money and politics. On the other hand, there is another form of treaty called “Multilateralism”, in which three or more organizations or countries collaborate to solve issues. Needless to say, it can be more powerful and profitable if all power is harmonized, but there would be much possibility of discussion and opposition in the process of decision making. If you have some bad intension in your mind, which would you choose bilateralism or multilateralism? Do you want to talk about your conspiracy with others? In bilateral treaty, all you need to do is to bribe a president in the name of international development.

Let me briefly talk about the case of Zimbabwe. When this country got its independence in 1980, it was called “The most blessed independence in Africa”. The both, large-scale farms owned by white people and small-scale farms owned by black people, had high productivity and its agricultural base was almost perfect. Agricultural products were exported to neighboring countries; literacy rate was more than 90%; there were large-scale industrial cities; mineral resources were so affluent; and railways and roads were well-built etc. However Robert Mugabe became the president of Zimbabwe and things changed drastically in a bad manner. And on June 26, 2006, he declared in his speech like the following: “This extreme rise in prices is a conspiracy of British. We must resist. In order to protect the life of citizens, companies and shops must sell all products in half price. I’ll nationalize all the businesses that don’t comply.” As a result, inflation rate rose up to 160,000% at maximum and domestic economy was completely destroyed. Did he protect citizens with it? Some might say that it’s because of his greediness, but why did he need to destroy agricultural base too by sending former guerrillas to farms? He could exploit from them if his intension was only for his greediness. So who really profits from devastation of African countries? My answer is the western counties that export products to Africa. In short, he oppressed the life of citizens and helped western countries.

This is my conspiratorial delusion. If Mugabe was bred by the hand of western countries secretly and sent back to become a president in the name of democratic election, which is controlled by someone, everything goes well for “them” who control western countries. Corruption, bribe, and devastation in Africa seem to be caused by selfishness and greediness of African presidents, but if they are all friends of western countries and share the wealth of Africa with “them”, all strange phenomena can be explained very easily and logically. In 2008, Robert Mugabe was re-elected as the president of Zimbabwe and when Africa Summit in the same year, he stated “If a leader of African country criticizes me as “non-democratic”, I’ll check how democratic his election was.” What does it mean? Doesn’t it imply that my delusion is right? This is the real character of presidency in Africa.