Dr. Fred M’membe Challenges Africa’s Democratic Norms Amid Coup Discussions
Dr. Fred M’membe, leader of Zambia’s Socialist Party, has stirred debate on Africa’s governance by questioning the effectiveness of electoral democracy and drawing attention to recent military coups in West Africa. Speaking at the Conference on Solidarity with the Sahel in Algiers, M’membe criticized elections as tools of imperialist manipulation and economic elitism, arguing that they often fail to deliver genuine democracy. His remarks resonate with widespread frustrations about flawed systems but also raise concerns about the implications of viewing coups as viable alternatives.
Highlighting the situations in Mali, Burkina Faso, Guinea, and Niger, Dr. M’membe framed the recent military takeovers as bold rejections of external interference and systemic corruption. He compared Captain Ibrahim Traoré of Burkina Faso to revolutionary leader Thomas Sankara, emphasizing a shared vision of anti-imperialism. “If we celebrate Sankara’s ideals, how can we not recognize Traoré’s courage?” M’membe asked. His stance aligns with a growing narrative among some Africans who view these coups as resistance to neocolonialism.
M’membe’s critique reflects discontent with electoral processes widely criticized for irregularities, elite manipulation, and failure to empower ordinary citizens. Describing such elections as “a sham,” he argued that they often undermine rather than reflect the will of the people. This perspective has gained traction among those disillusioned with democratic processes in their current form.
However, the proposition that military coups offer solutions to governance challenges is highly contentious. Political analysts caution that while coups may temporarily disrupt entrenched systems, they often fail to establish sustainable governance. History has shown that military regimes frequently centralize power, erode democratic institutions, and fail to deliver meaningful reforms.
Leaders like Captain Traoré have garnered popular support through strong anti-imperialist rhetoric and promises of reform. Yet skepticism remains about whether such regimes can transition from revolutionary zeal to effective governance. Mamane Sani Adamou, a fellow panelist at the conference, emphasized the importance of systemic change over temporary disruptions. “True progress requires inclusive systems and accountability, not just the replacement of one form of governance with another,” he said.
Dr. M’membe’s stance brings to light the broader tension between rejecting flawed democracies and maintaining constitutional order. While his critique of electoral failures resonates, glorifying military takeovers risks normalizing unconstitutional power grabs. Critics warn this could undermine Africa’s stability and derail efforts to build robust, inclusive institutions.
Internationally, the perspective that coups might be revolutionary has drawn sharp criticism. The African Union (AU) and United Nations (UN) continue to advocate for constitutional governance, emphasizing that military interventions rarely align with principles of human rights and sustainable development. Pro-coup rhetoric, they argue, could isolate nations from crucial global partnerships and stall progress toward collaborative development.
Carlos Ron of Venezuela’s Simon Bolivar Institute offered a balanced take, acknowledging imperialism’s decline as an opportunity for new governance models but cautioning against reliance on military rule. He noted, “The road to sovereignty must prioritize democracy and accountability over unilateral actions.”
Dr. M’membe’s comments highlight Africa’s struggle to reconcile the desire for sovereignty with the need for stable and inclusive governance. While his critique of electoral inadequacies has merit, the risks of promoting military takeovers cannot be ignored. The path forward requires bold solutions that balance revolutionary ideals with the establishment of enduring democratic structures, ensuring long-term development and equity for all.
The flaws and shortcomings of the current UPND government are numerous, but the populist and regressive ideology championed by Fred Meembw poses a clear and present danger. Zambia is not isolated in the lessons of history, and we must heed the experiences of other countries which show this model is a proven failure. Empowering such an individual, along with his ideology or party, would lead to disaster for Zambia. This cannot be allowed to happen, if we care for mother Zambia.
A classic example of a “socialist” who incites the masses and fuels upheaval, all while indulging in a life of luxury, cruising around in a $300,000 Hummer and flaunting European couture attire.
It’s convenient to overlook that the Russians are taking over oil fields and gold mines in West and Central Africa as payment for their mercenaries, who are being paid to fight on one side of those internal conflicts. Is that the “revolutionary struggle” Fred Mweemba is inciting? Perhaps he intends to make similar deals with his close friends in Russia if he should ever capture the government in Zambia.
Some of M’membe’s POVs are concerning. He may just turn out to be a leader who gets power democratically and then turns around to rule as a c0up leader. Nipano tuli…
A recent and striking example of this phenomenon is seen with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. They capitalized on the widespread discontent fueled by liberals, which resulted in the overthrow of General Mubarak. However, once they gained power, they quickly entrenched themselves and imposed their militant Islamist ideology, ultimately leading to another coup that crushed any democratic aspirations of the people.
He has refused to cooperate with other opposition parties in the Kawambwa bye election. False confidence for this socialist party, will only realise after 20 years in opposition.
He is a man with many complex and full of vindictiveness. He pushed Micheal Sata, along with Winter Kabimba, in a campaign of vindictiveness during the first PF Government, which hurt governance institutions in Zambia.