2024-09-28 17:42:20
Periods of political transition are pivotal moments, crucial for the rebuilding of a nation in search of stability and democracy. The shift in the transition timetable, although it often gives rise to concern and criticism, must be seen as an opportunity to avoid repeating the pitfalls and mistakes of the past.
In Guinea, recent history has shown us that hasty decisions and breaches of institutional fundamentals can have costly, serious and lasting consequences on stability, peace, social tranquility and the process of building democracy.
In 2010, a key moment for Guinea, a large part of the citizens entrusted political parties with the task of deciding the timetable, the cadence and the order of the elections, as well as the choice of the prime minister and almost all of the members of the government. Rather than providing Guinea with strong, or at least legitimate, laws and institutions, everyone, convinced of their certain victory in the next presidential election, preferred to bet on themselves, with the certainty of being the future President of the Republic. , giving it the necessary legality and legitimacy, but to the detriment of a constitutional referendum supposed to regulate the presidential function, the organization and the proper functioning of the State.
Thus, due to lack of time necessary for the transition and distrust of those in power at the time, Guinea did not benefit from a legal and legitimate constitution. In short, the transition was botched.
This situation led to numerous dysfunctions such as: a contested electoral register, the content of the constitution violated shortly after its promulgation, an “imported” president of the CENI election management institution and hotly contested final election results. In short, unprecedented post-election crises.
The essential foundations having not been established in 2010, the main consequence was the crisis of the third term, with its procession of deaths, material destruction and setbacks in all areas for Guinea.
In 2020, to remedy this situation, the same political actors requested the intervention of the Guinean army for a recovery, resulting in the army taking responsibility on September 5, 2021, which was greeted with general relief and massive support from Guineans. A national consultation was then organized to gather opinions on the duration of the transition, leading to a national consensus which was transmitted to ECOWAS.
To this end, a dynamic agreement has been established between the Guinean Government and ECOWAS which is based on shared responsibilities.
However, for various reasons, it becomes clear that the agreed deadline cannot be respected.
What should we do about this situation?
Intimidation, blackmail and warmongering are not the solution. This is about our country and our common future. Recent history teaches us that haste, haste or unreasonable diligence are not the appropriate responses. It is imperative to put strong laws and institutions in place before turning to choosing leaders.
Thus, to achieve a national consensus around a new timetable, dialogue is essential. The streets, blackmail and extremist speeches are far from being solutions.
Faced with this reality, legitimate questions arise to clarify the way forward:
- Does the CNRD have the right to establish an electoral register which would be contested from the first round, as in 2010? No. Certainly not
- Should the CNRD renounce the responsibility of organizing the various credible elections to build a strong territorial administration and robust institutions? No. Because this would compromise the progress made.
- Should the CNRD give in to pressure and leave power without having accomplished the fundamental reforms necessary to guarantee the future stability of the country? Absolutely not.
So, the shift in the transition timetable in Guinea, far from being a simple question of delay, must be seen as an opportunity to sustainably build the foundations of a solid democracy and sincere dialogue. It is crucial to learn from the past so as not to repeat the same mistakes. In this sense, dialogue, patience and the need to build strong institutions must take precedence over haste, haste and the spirit of chaos.
The CNRD, as guarantor of this transition, is obliged to ensure that each step is taken with caution, in order to guarantee a stable and bright future for all Guineans without haste on the basis of pressure.
Regarding political actors, they must remember that in 2010, gathered and united within the Forces Vives, they were supported by the majority of the people of Guinea to force the military to leave power in haste with the hope and the promise coming from them that their rallies and their unions after the election of a civilian president would lead to the development of Guinea and the construction of a solid democracy.
Unfortunately, this was a shattered hope.
Our politicians have not respected their commitments or oaths to the people of Guinea, despite numerous deaths for this cause.
We will remember that we asked for the departure of the military in 2009 and our compatriots who fell at the September 28 stadium in 2009 were only entitled to justice with the advent of the CNRD.
However, since the advent of the CNRD to power at its head Lieutenant General Mamadi DOUMBOUYA, we see a glimmer of hope for the development of our country with the gathering of all the daughters and sons of Guinea around him coming from all denominations.
So the solution and the only valid one is undoubtedly the appeasement of political discourse and dialogue for another consensual Guinean timeline.
Honorable Mohamed Bakary Keita