Monarchs and Dictators

By Samuel Muiruri | Dec. 20, 2018 | Politics

I’m not an expert on History or Politics but I’ve witnessed and hang around people who’ve discussed these topics enough that I feel I can put in my two cents on the subject. I believe there’s no more kingdoms only countries so any Monarch is just another brand of a dictator handing down the throne to you’re desired successor like North Korea from father to son. The dictator can also take the seat of ruler by force but still the end result is the same, the citizens are rarely thought about in the process. In general dictators and monarch tend to surround themselves with people who won’t disagree with them, the more you disagree with their policies the less likely you’ll stay in a position of power or favor while they still are in power.

I’ll start by putting it in context in Kenya, after gaining independence the first president had a short term and died while in office, the vice president Moi took over the post and in the upcoming elections though there were some with intent to take the position by force “coup” it didn’t succeed mainly because those who attempted the coup didn’t have the full support of the armed forces or armed forces of their own. This in turn did make him take drastic measures to prevent another attempt and the basic rights were curtailed as a result. There was only one political party to help strengthen his position and weaken any opposition.

Luckily though we have never been ruled by a dictator who got to the position from a coup so it only then that the preferred way to take him out of power was through democracy and that was eventually what happened. After this the incoming government lead by Kibaki.

In his term, with less of a leash around the politicians did lead to a spike in corruption cases.

The dictator won’t allow you to amass great wealth without his consent.

Idi Amin

Uganda’s Idi Amin and Libya’s Gadaffi however both got into power through a coup, so I’ll use them as a case study.


Idi Amin rose into power and like most dictators his ego was his downfall self proclaiming himself as the conqueror of Britain and eventually decided he wanted to take over some of Tanzania’s land, he also tried the same with Kenya but Kenyatta dared him and he eventually backed off. The same stunt didn’t go as well with Tanzania and the president at the time Nyerere marched his troops into the country, took over the capital Kampala and ousted his from power. Uganda isn’t as powerful as it’s neighbors and also at the time didn’t possess resources that would be worth fighting for unlike Libya with it’s oil reserves.

Gadaffi though got into power without much resistance and bloodshed thanks to some well planning on their part, from then on he helped manage Libya’s oil and raised the standards of living, the GDP per capita went up to $8,000

To put it into context, Gadaffi was killed in 2011 and the above chart shows the GDP over the years. He did some good during his term including making universities free of charge, same for healthcare, affordable housing and even had plans to make the biggest man-made river to supply the country with water. He was still making himself rich from the same with an estimated net worth of 200 billion at the time of his death. The reason for his demise was committing war crimes while fighting the resistance that wanted to oust him from power, the UN and ICC coming after him and the rebels eventually being armed by western powers eventually led to his downfall and death. In this case they choose to side with the lesser of two evils since the resistance itself was also committing the same acts just less severe. But better the devil you know than the angel you don’t know. The fact is the new regime didn’t make things better but worse and like some beliefs that western powers will destabilize some countries to get to their resources especially oil what I do know is Obama said his biggest regret in his term was not planning for a transitional government once they ousted Gadaffi.

One of the things he wanted to become reality was a united Africa; A united states of Africa and he championed this idea even as he got elected as the African Union Leader. The idea would be to dissolve the countries into states and the countries to use one currency, this was not likely to happen because the joining up would mean one leader for the region and he envisioned himself as the leader, he did have the money to help make that a reality and bribe his way through most of the Low Income countries and a harder time with the wealthier countries likely also having their oil reserves. The other problem with a general currency would be the value of the currency would be evaluated by the sum of the GDP’s of all the countries, for countries that were doing pretty well they find the new currency dip’s from the averaging out.

A more reasonable request would have been to have the African Union not to be there just for show but mould itself into the equivalent of the EU so any country that joins the AU “African Union” would first benefit from tax free trade between the countries and easy move of it’s citizen’s from one country to the other without the need of VISA’s even for job opportunities. This is happening in East Africa with Kenya and Uganda, Tanzania is quite reluctant to join citing it’s not in the best interest of it’s citizens.

But a new agreement has cropped up to allow free trade for all African countries known as “Continental Free Trade Area” signed by 44 out of 55 countries so far, Kenya included.

One of the additional traits of the EU agreement compared to this is each country having benefited from free trade pays some dividends to the EU which inturn is sent to help out the countries in need in the region which inturn also will help increase it’s GDP and lifestyle of it’s citizens and raise the Euro’s value. UK argues that it has given too much to the EU and in turn gets little back therefore Brexit which now feels like those pro brexit are coming to terms with its implications once they lose a huge trading block next door and need to renegotiate a new trade agreement worse than the original hoping the dividends saved from not sending money to the EU would outweigh the loss from a trade tax. Also there’s less interest in taking in any refugees which the EU has been bombarded with from Syria so as each country closes it’s borders the only hope is for Wakanda to move forward.

I’m curious though if the UN with it’s budget to help out refugees couldn’t have come up with an agreement where it would cater for the cost for the refugees with intent to have them relocated home once the conflict is done, the country can choose to integrate the people though per person on a merit base. One thing though that doesn’t help the cause for the refugees is some are found to be violent and even some end up raping, bad move. I can only assume coming from a male dominated country to one with more freedom and women dress freely and fueled by them hormones to find women who belittle them based on the fact they are refugees and likely are also poor end up not getting some and some end up feeling they need to take matters into their own hand, likely under the influence of some drug or religious notion of what a woman shouldn’t do since they don’t seem to contrast that you can’t treat a woman in a different country the same as yours it depends on the laws of the country and it should always boil down to decency of treating each other humanely but in these sharia compliant countries that’s rarely the case.

If Africa decided to join under the AU to help African countries similar to the EU even without a common currency it would be highly beneficial to the region and it might eventually help incite for a common currency or even joining up further down in the future.