When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

Already a subscriber? Log in .

You've reached your limit of one free article.

Get unlimited access to Worldcrunch

You can cancel anytime .


Exclusive International news coverage

Ad-free experience NEW

Weekly digital Magazine NEW

9 daily & weekly Newsletters

Access to Worldcrunch archives

Free trial

30-days free access, then $2.90
per month.

Annual Access BEST VALUE

$19.90 per year, save $14.90 compared to monthly billing.save $14.90.

Subscribe to Worldcrunch

Fate Of African Democracy At Stake In Ivory Coast

Editorial: Laurent Gbagbo's refusal to cede power sets dangerous African precedent.

Rural poll station in Ghana
Rural poll station in Ghana

Laurent Gbagbo is no Francisco Franco and the Ivory Coast, in 2011, is no Spain in 1936. But what is at stake right now in Abidjan, where civil war has just broken out, is nothing less than the future of democracy as it concerns an entire continent. In that sense there is certainly a parallel to be drawn with the young Spanish Republic at the outset of its bloody civil war.

The crisis that began in December 2010, when incumbent president Laurent Gbagbo refused to recognize Alassane Ouattara's victory, is a battle between two men. But it is above all a battle between two types of legitimacy: one coming from the votes of popular sovereignty and one imposed by armed forces. The latter was on display yet again on March 8 when Gbagbo ordered soldiers to shoot on the crowd.

If force were to win in Ivory Coast, it would mark a triumph of brutality over law. And it would discredit any future elections held on the continent. Why bother voting if the loser stays in power or takes it anyway?

At least 18 elections are planned in Africa in 2011 alone. If Gbagbo were to stay in power, the risk of destabilization and the spread of authoritarianism would be even more dangerous. If, on the other wand, Ouattara were to effectively take power, it would be a strong warning to all Gbagbo-style candidates seeking lifelong presidencies. Ouattara's electoral victory was recognized by both the African Union and United Nations.

Saying this in no way means telling Ivorians what to do. They already expressed themselves clearly in 2010. Nor it is enough to give Ouattara a stamp of democratic approval just yet. It just means that democracy will develop in Africa when men learn to bow down to institutions.

But only Africans can win their democratic future. A president picked by the West, or appearing to be, would loose part of his legitimacy. That is not the case for Ouattara, who was elected in a process supervised by the United Nations, an election Gbagbo himself had agreed to after years of negotiations.

Half a century after gaining its independence, interference by former colonizers or by the United States would only fuel Gbagbo's "anti-imperialist" rhetoric. This is no time, therefore, for talks of western intervention – something that occurred in Spain in 1936.

The process initiated by the AU, which asked a panel of five African presidents to find a solution to the crisis, is a step in the right direction. Helping Africans solve the Ivorian crisis on their own is necessary and urgent, before the civil war divides the Ivory Coast and triggers instability in all of Western Africa.

Read the original article in French

Photo - Erik Kristensen

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

FOCUS: Russia-Ukraine War

A Profound And Simple Reason That Negotiations Are Not An Option For Ukraine

The escalation of war in the Middle East and the stagnation of the Ukrainian counteroffensive have left many leaders in the West, who once supported Ukraine unequivocally, to look toward ceasefire talks with Russia. For Polish daily Gazeta Wyborcza, Piotr Andrusieczko argues that Ukraine simply cannot afford this.

Photo of Ukrainian soldiers in winter gear, marching behind a tank in a snowy landscape

Ukrainian soldiers ploughing through the snow on the frontlines

Volodymyr Zelensky's official Facebook account
Piotr Andrusieczko


KYIVUkraine is fighting for its very existence, and the war will not end soon. What should be done in the face of this reality? How can Kyiv regain its advantage on the front lines?

It's hard to deny that pessimism has been spreading among supporters of the Ukrainian cause, with some even predicting ultimate defeat for Kyiv. It's difficult to agree with this, considering how this war began and what was at stake. Yes, Ukraine has not won yet, but Ukrainians have no choice for now but to continue fighting.

For the latest news & views from every corner of the world, Worldcrunch Today is the only truly international newsletter. Sign up here.

These assessments are the result of statements by the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, General Valeriy Zaluzhnyi, and an interview with him in the British weekly The Economist, where the General analyzes the causes of failures on the front, notes the transition of the war to the positional phase, and, critically, evaluates the prospects and possibilities of breaking the deadlock.

Earlier, an article appeared in the American weekly TIME analyzing the challenges facing President Volodymyr Zelensky. His responses indicate that he is disappointed with the attitude of Western partners, and at the same time remains so determined that, somewhat lying to himself, he unequivocally believes in victory.

Combined, these two publications sparked discussions about the future course of the conflict and whether Ukraine can win at all.

Some people outright predict that what has been known from the beginning will happen: Russia will ultimately win, and Ukraine has already failed.

Keep reading...Show less

The latest