Dos Santos: Succession blunder and the changing political fortunes

The passing of former Angola’s strongman, Jose Eduardo dos Santos, a man with a complex legacy of both war and peace led to different views about his time in charge of the southern African nation for nearly four decades. The most critical voices said that his passing was the closing of another chapter in Africa of rulers who plundered their countries resources, stole and enriched themselves, their families and close associates through corrupt deals.

Some of those holding such views put him in the company of the likes of former Zaire president Mobutu Sese Seko or Sani Abacha, one of many Nigeria’s military rulers. The connection is obvious, even after the passing of these two rulers, their countries have continued to struggle to recover what was stolen back then with varying degrees of success. Even in cases where there have been successes, it has paled in comparison to the amounts which were stolen by these former rulers.

However, one aspect of Dos Santos’s long rule is peculiar as far as African rulers are concerned: his succession. How he handled it, must have been one of his greatest regrets to the end.

In Africa, especially for long time rulers like him or those in power through long time ruling parties or liberation movements, he failed in managing his own succession.

In Southern Africa, where many countries are still ruled by long time ruling parties or liberation movements, he was the only former president, whose family ended up with a long list of legal troubles, leading to many of them fleeing to other countries. Certainly, there have been other family members of former presidents who found themselves in legal trouble like in Mozambique but it never got as bad as it did for Dos Santos’s family in Angola.

There are those who will point to Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe for comparisons. After all in death, there was a bitter disagreement between those in power and family members of where to bury Mugabe. The same thing is playing out in the case of Dos Santos. However, in the end, Mugabe had no say in the person who succeeded him in power having being pushed out, dying-in the words of a relative--a ‘bitter man’. That was not the case for Dos Santos. He handpicked his successor and campaigned for him to take over from him. It was supposed to be smooth sailing from then forward; until it wasn’t.

In this regard, Dos Santos had company in a former president of Cameroon, Ahmadou Ahidjo, who having handpicked the current ruler, Paul Biya ended up fleeing the country, after relations went south to the point he was sentenced to death in absentia. That, he had even fired some ruling party officials who opposed Biya’s presidency and went on tours in different parts of the country to address concerns about his successor did not matter in the end. Ahidjo died in exile and was buried in another country.

Dos Santos failed in life, where even some of the former ruling presidents in Africa succeeded in death. They had orchestrated elaborate plans which ended with their sons in charge of their countries. These are many. From the Democratic of Congo’s Laurent-Désiré Kabila, to Togo’s Gnassingbé Eyadéma to Gabon’s Omar Bongo, and even Chad’s Idriss Déby Itno.

On a continent where long time ruling presidents are still a thing, there are many who will take their lessons on the succession failures of Dos Santos. For starters, many of the long time ruling parties or liberation movements have so far succeeded in holding onto to power without serious troubles from within as deals have been cut by the ruling elites of giving way to another face after every few years. This has guaranteed some degree of patience within these ruling parties as each wait for their turn or their faction’s turn to power.

This has also been useful in diluting the anger of the people at the party in power with the changing faces at the top. Voters end up looking at the individuals in question and forget about the parties in charge. Even those skeptical find themselves giving another chance at these parties during elections because they see hope in the new face as opposed to the one leaving.

It is also practical as it gives the illusion of a ‘competitive’ democracy at work and provides justification for those in power both within and outside their countries even if elections are rigged, bought-off, or stolen. That is better than nothing at all. For a continent that is still troubled with political succession, Dos Santos’s succession blunder is insightful of the changing fortunes of long term rulers and the changing political terrain around them.