While Africa has a very small proportion of younger leaders between 33 and 55 in comparison with other continents, it has the youngest population in the world. The age gap between Africa’s elderly leaders and its young population has created a disconnect between the leaders and the led. By DAVID E KWUWA for THE CONVERSATION.
There is something unmistakably common in Africa: the continent’s ageing and long-serving presidents.
Its five longest presidencies stretch between 29 and 36 years, adding to a cumulative 169 years. Their longevity in office is matched by their old age, ranging from 71 to 92 years, and a combined 392 years.
Gabon’s Omar Bongo had been president for a whopping 41 years when he died in office at the age of 73 in 2011. Hastings Banda, Malawi’s self-proclaimed president for life, was in his late 90s when he was ousted from office in 1994. Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe is 91, making him the oldest leader in the world.
He is followed closely by:
- Tunisia’s Caid Essebsi (91);
- Cameroon’s Paul Biya (82);
- Liberia’s Ellen Johnson Sirleaf (80);
- Algeria’s Abdelaziz Bouteflika (78);Guinea’s Alpha Condé (75);
- South Africa’s Jacob Zuma (74);
- Equatorial Guinea’s Teodoro Nguema (73);
- Namibia’s Hage Geingob (73);
- Angola’s Eduardo dos Santos(72); and
- Uganda’s Yoweri Museveni (71).
Their average age is 78.1, compared to 52 for the world’s 10 most-developed economies. Arguably, compared to other continents, Africa has a very small proportion of younger leaders between 35 and 55. Paradoxically, the continent has the youngest populationin the world.
Old and out of touch
Africa has an age-gap disconnect between the leaders and the led. To put it into context, 85% of Angolans were not born when Dos Santos came into power in 1979; 83% of Zimbabweans were born after Mugabe first came to power as prime minister in 1980; and 79% of Ugandans were born after Museveni took over power in 1986.
On average, only between 15% to 21% of their citizens were alive when these presidents took the reins.
So, with a burgeoning youthful demography at the bottom, the political top is disturbingly grey. The issue here is the age at which African leaders continue to hold the fort and ultimately refuse to release their grip on power.
This question has been given specific relevance by the poster boy of the ageing leadership, the nonagenarian Mugabe. He recently read an old state of the nation address to his parliament.
This, after he had an earlier mistakenly denounced his own party, shouting “down with Zanu PF”. The increasing gaffes and their frequency tell a progressively sad narrative: the old man is unable to exercise or retain the alertness needed for the job.
It shows him to be obviously incapable of providing an unclouded vision that matches the pace, expectations and tone of the times. But most troubling, leaders such as Mugabe have failed to deliver on the expectations of their burgeoning youth.
Why is Africa so saddled with leaders who ought to be enjoying their retirement in peace and quiet, instead of in the unforgiving political corridors, campaign trails and taxing political brinkmanship that challenge even the youngest leaders? If the average age of the continent is in the 20s, why is the average age of leadership 65?
Part of the explanation across the board is their mastered use ofbrute force and violence to intimidate opponents. Also, the ageing leaders’ supporters argue that with age and longevity in office come wisdom, foresight and experience. But this is clearly contradicted by the abysmal performance of their economies and uncertain sociopolitical stability.
Yet, such leaders still attract reverence and unbridled loyalty from their supporters. Equally, being seen as the ‘fathers of the nation’, who led independence or liberation struggles, makes them irreproachable, irrespective of their shortcomings, extending their tenure.
Perhaps a broader explanation that cuts across their respective constituencies lies in the combination of political machinations and shrewd political brinkmanship through patrimonial networks and corrupt practices.
Undoubtedly, it is also their longevity in the executive office that has curtailed and stifled the emergence of credible and youthful successors. But this doesn’t fully explain why Tunisia, Namibia, Liberia, Ghana and others still return leaders in their twilight years. This begs the question: are African youths still unable to appreciate their ability to dictate the pace and direction of their own destinies or the correlation between their leaders’ age and their floundering fortunes?
Clearly the answer is in the affirmative. This paradox is informed by a binary where those at the top are stuck in the anti-colonial/Western mentality. Added to this are nostalgia overliberation struggles and distrust for youth, while those at the bottom are driven by technological innovation, globalisation, the pressure of consumerism and the frustration of unfulfilled promise.
Much of the progressive world embraces the innovativeness of youth – its energy, vibrancy, adaptability, willingness to embrace change and enthusiasm to learn. Africa, on the other hand, wobbles behind, unable to keep pace, thanks to its conservative ageing leaders.
For as long as the leaders and their followers have differinginterpretations of what the continent needs today and tomorrow, Africa will for the foreseeable future stay caught in unpredictable generational crosswinds between her past and the future. DM
David E Kiwuwa is associate professor of international studies at Princeton University.
Photo: Zimbabwe’s President Robert Mugabe gestures during his address at the annual conference of his ZANU-PF party in Gweru about 285 km (177 miles) west of the capital Harare, December 7, 2012. REUTERS/Philimon Bulawayo.