A peace deal consensually endorsed by all political players in Burundi is undone by Nkurunziza.
About two weeks ago, Burundi held a referendum to amend the constitution to enable President Pierre Nkurunziza to potentially stay in power until 2034. The “yes” vote won with 73 percent.
Specifically, the referendum changes a president term in office from the current five years to seven; gives the presidency more powers than before and collapses the two vice president positions created through the Arusha Peace Process that ended the civil war in 2000 into one and creates the office of the Prime Minister.
In addition, the new constitution also scraps the collegial cabinet created in Arusha and empowers the Senate to decide whether or not to keep the ethnic quota agreed in Arusha at will.
Thus, while Nkurunziza’s quest for the third term in 2015 that the opposition claimed was unconstitutional sparked demonstrations, a failed coup and crackdown that forced many into exile, the changes allow Nkurunziza to stand for two more terms. That is, in 2020 and 2027.
The Burundian leadership said the vote represent a milestone and a break with “colonial control”. The opposition is crying foul.
As the media reported, President Nkurunziza said after casting his ballot that “It was Burundians who called [for] the referendum…” and that “Today is an important today for Burundians”
Unrest
However, as The EastAfrican reported two weeks ago under the sobering headline of “Burundi’s deadly referendum’, the “New laws undo the delicate Arusha Accords agreed between Hutus and Tutsis in 2000, setting the state for unrest”.
And as constitutional lawyer Wachira Maina argued in The EastAfrican, the constitutional changes “…must inevitably destabilize Burundi, a country forever teetering on the precipice”
In other words, a peace deal that was consensually endorsed by all political players in Burundi is undone by Nkurunziza, who came to power under the same deal in 2005!
This means that the referendum has reversed the consensus political settlement arrived at in Arusha and sets the stage for future violent contestation.
So, we ask, is an election where citizens willingly demand and vote for what they want capable of setting the stage for violence? How can the constitutional change represent the triumph of the Burundians as the president says and at the same time represent a danger that could lead to violence?
To understand why it’s possible to hold elections under the banner of “the people have decided” and reap violence, one needs to comprehend three critical factors in less freer and donor dependent societies.
The first is the difference between procedural and substantive democracy. The second is the fallacy of “the people rule” enshrined in most constitutions and “the people have decided”. And the third is the source of legitimacy for many undemocratic, donor-feed societies.
In broader terms, procedural democracy addresses the question of “how” to get leaders while substantive democracy deals with “what” or the quality of governance.
In its purest form, procedural democracy emphasizes rules like who will vote (e.g. everyone above 18 years); how the winner will be determined (majority vote); who will count the votes (e.g. independent commission) and how often elections should be held (every five or seven years, etc).
Outcome controlled
In Burundi’s case however, some political players are not only in exile but even the opposition in the country wasn’t allowed to freely converse for support nor are journalists free.
In fact, a few days to the vote, BBC and VOA were banned and over 100 Burundi journalists are in exile; only the media that toe Nkurunziza’s line are allowed.
As a Burundian human rights and democracy researcher told me, “The Burundi electoral process and outcome are controlled”.
He added: “How can you talk of substantive democracy when the ruling party has a paramilitary group that goes around the country intimidating people; beating them and even killing them? How can you talk of democracy when the opposition isn’t allowed to freely campaign? How can you talk of democracy when the electoral commission is controlled”?
My interlocutor concluded: “The referendum will not decrease tension, it lays the ground for a future war. For now those fighting him [Nkurunziza] are disorganized but it doesn’t mean if they don’t fight him their children won’t fight him. While conflict preventers sometimes downplay risks of war, every evidence in Burundi points to a future war because Nkurunziza doesn’t have the means to prevent it under present circumstances”
To that extent then, this election in Burundi was a procedure to legitimize Nkurunziza’s continued stay in power than an exercise in democracy representing the free will of citizens.
Procedural game
And, of course, this happens in many African countries. Part of the reason why procedure is emphasized is because of the obsession western countries and aid agencies place on regular elections.
And since countries like Burundi crave and derive legitimacy from donors, they play the “procedural game” not that it represents the people’s will but because it brings them legitimacy. What matters is holding elections! Regularly!
And, of course this helps expose the fallacy of “the people rule” and “the people have decided” invoked by the Burundian leadership.
In Burundi, as in many countries with no history of democracy, the elite speak on behalf of the people and do what they want in the name of the people; not the other way around.
Having said that, the difference in Burundi is that the referendum undoes what was endorsed by all political players in Arusha and codifies the will and aspirations of President Nkurunziza and his CNDD-FDD party into law.
Thus, with political settlement agreed on by all Burundian political players dismantled, the referendum sets the stage for future violence; not democratic consolidation.