Introductory Remarks
by
Laurent Gbagbo,
President of Front Populaire Ivoirien
The National Press Club, Washington DC, on June 23, 1997


  Ladies and Gentlemen,
As surprising as it may sound, multiparty politics was authorized in Cote
d'lvoire only on April 30, 1990 after thirty years of national sovereignty.
Our constitution provides for numerous rights and freedoms, yet and for most
Ivorians it is clear that democracy to this moment still remains held up to
ridicule in our country. Most of our compatriots have the unsettling feeling
that the closer we get to the year 2000 the more our freedoms are curtailed.

In Cote d'Ivoire, the State apparatus is not partial. The current
administration's refusal to resolutely opt for the path of democratic
reforms as well as its tragic stubbornness against sizing up the winds of
change and the irreversible character of the democratic process have shrivel
the political and social relations, thus poisoning the political climate.
The State, instead of being the protector of all, hounds down large segments
of the population. Having given up on maintaining a neutral posture, the
security forces, clothed and paid with Ivorian taxpayer's money, have
ruthlessly repress prodemocratic militants. As a matter of fact, the
government bureaucracy has acquired itself a habit: that of cloaking itself
in the ruling party's colors. Consequence: before facing up the ruling party
proper during general elections all opposition candidates do have first to
contend with their first opponents: the prefectoral and sub-prefectoral
bureaucracies. To this one should add the side-stepping of electoral
transparency by the government both in 1990 and 1995 and the heavy-handed
control of the Interior ministry over the whole electoral process.

Everyday, discredit and opprobium are heaped onto democratic opposition
parties and their leaders. Everyday, opposition parties and their leaders
are demonized and subjected to Intimidations, beatings, and imprisonment.

State media are monopolized by the current administration and turned into
the ruling party's instrument of propaganda, occultation, and even of
sabotage of opposition activities. To muzzle the private press, carrier of
hope of freedom, libel suits for "offense to the Head of State",, incitement
to violence suits as well as many other exotic suits on trumped charges are
common place against journalists. To this already long list of violence and
violations, one should add the judiciary branch, a branch completely
subjugated to the current administration. Our judiciary branch is adept at
shying away from honoring its responsibility.

Put together all these basic human rights violations, micro-management of
the judiciary branch, and attempts at gagging the private press have lead to
the perverting of the whole democratic process in Cote d'Ivoire where the
ruling party is both judge and judged.

Born out of a serious social crisis, the multiparty experience in Cote
d'Ivoire until now has evolved through crises. Taking stock of these crises,
it is clear that with regard to democracy the Ivorian society has not yet
reached a new "consensus." It is also quite obvious that confidence in the
current administration's ability to propose a coherent and progressive path
to succeed at this democratic experiment has disappeared. This is why the
ruling PDCI's stubborn drive towards bringing Ivorians back to the one-party
system, its commitment to impose, by all means, PDCI's one-party system once
again, remains a real subject of serious concern for my party, the Ivorian
Popular Front.

This situation is particularly troubling in view of one of the most striking
teachings of contemporary Third World history: it is the power structure's
refusal to dialogue with their legal opposition that sooner or later has
produced armed oppositions. Whether in Africa with Machel, Agostino Neto and
Amilcar Cabral, or in Asia Ho Chi Minh and Giap, it should be noted that
none of those liberation leaders have chosen to engage in armed struggle at
the onset; they were forced to it by those in powers. These nationalists
were only demanding independence and the exercise of basic freedoms. They
all tried to negotiate for a peaceful path to independence, to no avail.
Indeed, it is the refusal to listen to them that have forced them into armed
struggle. More recently in Zaire, this threshold of exasperation has been
reached in a dosage that was poisonous. Laurent Desire Kabila and his troops
provided the straw that had finally broken the camel's back and Mobutu had
no other choice than to leave. The same history teaches us equally that most
civil wars in Africa came out of poorly organized elections. In Liberia, for
instance, it is the intolerance, the totalitarianism of the exslaves that
has led to the military coup that brought Samuel Doe to power in 1980.
Ironically, five years later, the same intolerance and totalitarianism will
pushed Samuel Doe into rigging the 1985 elections. Therein lies why some
people in Liberia felt they had no other options than to take up arms.

In Burundi, FRODEBU won fair and square during democratic elections and its
leader Melshior N'Dadaye came out elected President. Three months later,
refusing to accept President Ndadaye's victory, retrograde forces
assassinated him and many of his aides. And the country, ladies and
gentlemen, has been destabilized. In Nigeria, democratic elections have been
organized by the Babanguida administration, yet when Abiola came out the
victor, his victory was not accepted. Today, Nigeria is a destabilized
country looking like a drunken boat on indomitable waves. To believe that
one should always govern tends to sooner or later provoke internal
conflagrations. In Africa, as anywhere else, nobody is ever strong enough to
be strong forever. We are worried.

Ladies and Gentlemen, My party, its militants and leaders, deeply love Me
d'Ivoire. It is painful for us Africans to see the situation in which our
countries find themselves because of the selfishness of some backward
forces. Nevertheless,- the FPI refuses to be driven to despair about Cote
d'Ivoire and continues to believe in the future of our country. We continue
to dream of a day where the whole Ivorian society will reconcile with
itself. It is with these feelings of great urgency that the FPI is calling
once again for an immediate opening of dialogue to prepare for a serene
future for Cote d'Ivoire. The current period could not be more propitious
for such an undertaking. For we are sufficiently far away from the last
elections so as to escape its crops of resentment and yet not close enough
to the next elections to feel its pressures.

Reducing and eliminating the current tension, restoring confidence and the
flourishing of freedoms will inevitably mean establishing a new consensus
around four (4) priority themes:

1. A revision of the electoral system to be based on proportional
representation and nondiscriminatory laws
2. A development policy based on institutional reforms and decentralization
3. A liberalization of state-owned media and the promotion of a free press.
4. A regional integration of West African economies.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These remarks were made at The National Press Club, Washington DC, on June
23, 1997

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
You may also send subscription requests to [log in to unmask]
if you have problems accessing the web interface and remember to write your full name and e-mail address.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------