Can Mauritania's new dialogue heal historic divides or will it repeat past failures?
On 27 November 2024, President Mohamed Ould Ghazouani called for a national political dialogue to strengthen social cohesion and consolidate democracy in Mauritania. In doing so, he fulfils an electoral promise and a key political commitment made in his second term.
However, opinion is divided on whether this dialogue can succeed, considering that over the past two decades, five political dialogues (in 2004, 2005, 2007, 2017 and 2018) failed to resolve the country's fundamental problems. These include social divisions, poor governance and corruption, electoral dysfunction, the persistence of slavery, and the humanitarian liabilities caused by government abuses against black Mauritanian civil servants and soldiers between 1986 and 1991.
According to unofficial figures, Mauritania's population is 70% Arab-Berber (30% Beydane and 40% Haratine) and 30% Afro-Mauritanian (Fulani, Wolof and Soninke). Beydane are historically dominant, holding political and economic power.
The president's party and its parliamentary allies view the dialogue as an opportunity to enhance engagement between political actors. But the opposition remains cautious, wary that this might simply repeat previous futile exercises conducted since the country's transition to democracy in 1992.
The new dialogue — which does not have a specific time frame — responds to repeated calls from opposition parties seeking an opportunity for frank debate to help solve the country's major challenges.
Mauritania has been working to get the national dialogue started since February, with negotiations under way to secure participation from as many political and civil society actors as possible. Ghazouani first held meetings with political party leaders to encourage their involvement.
Consultations
Then dialogue coordinator Moussa Fall, former head of Mauritania's Central Bank and 1970s student struggle leader, began consultations with various stakeholders to outline the process and ensure their participation. Several political actors have already submitted their proposals for the dialogue's roadmap.
However, some opposition leaders have set out conditions that must first be agreed to ensure the dialogue succeeds. The Union of the Forces of Progress demands that Ghazouani guarantee implementation of the dialogue's decisions and establish a consensual follow-up mechanism to ensure action is taken.
The Alliance for Justice and Democracy party calls for official recognition of national languages, withdrawal of the national education framework law, and a repeal of the political parties law. The latter law was criticised for giving the Minister of the Interior excessive powers to recognise and dissolve political parties.
The most notable rejection of the dialogue process so far is from Biram Dah Abeid, leader of the Initiative for the Resurgence of the Abolitionist Movement, which campaigns against slavery. Abeid was runner-up in the 2014, 2019 and 2024 presidential elections, and demands official recognition of his party. He also wants assurances that the government will resolve the case of young people killed during demonstrations in Kaédi following the announcement of the 2024 election results.
Abeid further insists on transparency throughout the dialogue, pledges that its decisions will be implemented, and the appointment of a neutral body to supervise the process, instead of the Ministry of the Interior.
The dialogue will have to deal with deeply opposing views on sensitive issues such as national languages, racial discrimination, historical humanitarian abuses and slavery.
Arab nationalists in Mauritania argue that opening these issues up for debate could threaten the country's identity and national cohesion. Their recent outbursts on social media and in the press show their determination to oppose any discussion of these matters.
'Buying time'
Meanwhile, black Mauritanian activists and the Initiative for the Resurgence of the Abolitionist Movement believe this dialogue will be no different from previous ones. In their view, past dialogues merely bought time for successive governments, as they failed to implement proposed decisions and solutions.
Activists and supporters of Abeid's movement demand guarantees that debates will cover all issues without restriction, including building social cohesion and ending slavery practices. They also want the president's personal commitment to implement the dialogue's recommendations.
Despite these many reservations, the government is forging ahead to encourage participation. Public opinion and democratic forces in Mauritania generally emphasise the need for national agreement on solving the divisive issues that threaten the country's peace, unity and justice. The planned dialogue has the potential to offer solutions.
Ghazouani sought to provide reassurance on 11 March 2025, when he addressed leaders of the majority and opposition parties, expressing his commitment to organise a dialogue that would resolve fundamental problems of national unity and good governance. But in order to break with the tradition of one-off dialogues that achieve little, authorities must do more than make announcements.
The success of this initiative will depend on its ability to tackle sensitive issues head-on through a transparent, inclusive process. An independent monitoring mechanism that all participants agree on is vital to ensure that concrete actions are taken in response to the dialogue's decisions.
Without meaningful change, Ghazouani's dialogue risks deepening the political divisions it aims to reconcile, threatening stability in Mauritania. DM
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
3 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
The pernicious association of coups d'etat as somehow unique to Africa
The word 'coup' has been dropped into the political lexicon of South Africa. The public lexicon, that is… The word, now dropped in public, seems to have provided grist to the mill of Afro-pessimists and those self-assured people who would insist that certain societies are 'not ready for democracy'. During a media briefing on SA's national security strategy for 2024-28, Minister in the Presidency Khumbudzo Ntshavheni raised the spectre of a coup as part of the deliberations of the security community in government. 'One of the risks is the risk of a coup d'état. There is a potential risk of a coup d'état. We have identified it and put measures [in place] to mitigate against it,' Ntshavheni said. A few things may be discussed about this public statement, and about the idea of coups d'etat. One stand-out thing is that it is somehow an African thing (and it could not possibly be part of the European world with its deep history of democracy) – which simply cranks up the music for those who dance on South Africa's grave. Another, more important issue and potentially dangerous, is a type of stochastic messaging sent out by Minister Ntshavheni and the equally dangerous suggestion that the topic should be avoided. Let us start with the Europe-is-good-and-great notion, and that Africa is prone to coups d'etat. None of what follows justifies or even suggests that coups are necessary. It is, also, not a judgement call on 'good' or 'bad' coups… The mis-education about coups d'etat and democracy in Africa and Europe There is a quite wilful and pernicious association of coups d'etat with Africa as somehow unique to the continent, starting, as it usually does, by ripping it from the multiplicity of contexts that shape post-independence democracy on the continent. Consider the view of Abu-Bakarr Jalloh, an editor from Sierra Leone with the German news service, Deutsche Welle: 'The year 2021 went down in history as the year when military coups returned to Africa. In just a few months, the African continent witnessed dozens of coups and attempted coups in Mali, Guinea, Sudan and Chad. So far, 2022 has been no different. Last week, a military junta took power in Burkina Faso. For people who were around in the '60s, '70s and '80s — the heyday of coups across the continent — it feels a bit like déjà vu.' That last sentence bites. Given, especially, that it comes from a European news platform – as if the rise of the far-right and Nazism in Europe is not 'a bit like déjà vu'. European history of the past 100 years (at least) is pocked by attempted, planned, or actual coups and self-replacement – which basically refers to coups in which the leaders put themselves back in office. Over less than 100 years (since the Spartacus League's attempt to overthrow the Social Democrat-led government in 1919), Germany has had at least 10 coups or attempted/planned coups. The word does, indeed, weigh like ironwood on the imagination of Afropessimists, flagrant racists, Africans in the belly of the beast (paying for their national board and lodging), and those apparently sophisticated types who would have for decades insisted that some societies are not ready for democracy – and have to be saved from themselves. This 'not ready for democracy' claim was reproduced about Russia by (predictably) the Washington Post, and raised in discussions hosted by Eurasianet – a news service that covers the South Caucasus and Central Asia. It is thrown about, mainly in the West, with reference to Iran, and for most of the post-war period, there has been a to-and-fro over Africa's apparent incompatibility with democracy. There is nothing apophenic about seeing a pattern in all of this. Hint: It's always about the enemies of the West. Almost always, actually. There are among us Africans, too, who would have us believe that democracy tends to fail in Africa, as Aribiah David Attoe, of Wits University, wrote last year – as if democracy is one thing and one thing only. Let's set aside, for now, just what democracy actually is in the life world of people, and whether it is usually stable and progressive. A very cursory look at Europe shows that that continent, too (never mind Jolloh's suggestion that Africa is synonymous with coups d'etat), has had very many coups – at least over the past 100 years. There have, for instance, been at least 10 actual or attempted coups d'etat in Spain over the past 100 years – since the removal of Primo de Rivera on 15 September 1923. Early in the last century, Austria had a handful of attempted coups or 'self-removals' – and that famous July Putsch of 1934. French settlers in Algeria staged a putsch of the generals to prevent Algerian independence, because the settlers claimed that Algeria was part of France. Let's turn to Greece, which provides a segue to democracy, where we are reminded of extended periods of dictatorial rule over the course of the 20th century, most notably by the 4th of August Metaxas regime and the 21st of April military junta of 1967. That country which 'gave the world democracy' has been through about 19 coups d'etat in the 20th century. There is no need to look very far for evidence. Consider this; over four years (between 1924 and 1928), Greece, the purported birthplace of modern democracy, went through 10 prime ministers; two presidents were deposed and one resigned, with 'numerous military coups' – the most brutal of which was that of Theodoros Pangalos. The dude installed himself. It helps, then, to have a more complete appreciation for the extent of military coups around the world, including the civilised Europeans and their centuries of democracy and freedom, when compared with Africa's barely seven decades of independence – with the multiplicity of conditionalities and lingering chains to the European metropoles, how these have constrained democracy on the continent, and limited the abilities of African countries ' to make policy decisions and … ownership of national development strategies '. The dangers of stochastic messaging Minister Ntshavheni does not get away with her statement easily. The problem with what seemed like an honest and open statement about the likelihood or the real or actual threat of a coup in South Africa is that it is somewhat of a stochastic messaging which, in lay terms, puts ideas in the heads of the populists who were behind the violence and destruction of July 2021. Now, we should be careful. The state can choose to never mention the word 'coup', and leave it underground, so to speak. Or reference can be made to it in public. There's a downside to both. Let's get some definitional stuff out of the way. There is a danger, always, of messaging that works through suggestion or implication as opposed to explicit directives. Donald Trump's speech on 6 January 2021 is a good example of stochastic messaging, and has been described as ' ambiguously inciting '. At Trump's 'Stop the Steal' rally, before an armed crowd stormed the US legislature, he gave a speech urging the crowd to 'fight like hell'. Julius Malema is a better example. Malema has, on various occasions, said things (like) 'we are revolutionaries; revolutionaries are prepared to fight; revolutionaries are prepared to shed blood', and at some point he brandished a firearm. To his audience and followers who feel aggrieved and who believe they have been stripped of 'economic freedom', voice and/or access to power, all these statements may amount to an exhortation to violence – without Malema actually telling people to go and destroy things or shoot people. I am not a great supporter of censorship. I have always contested censorship, and I have the emotional, mental and physical scars to prove it. Kinda. I do, however, accept that there may be times when the state cannot share information with the public because any such exposure may jeopardise policy or bargaining processes, or, for example, throw a spanner in the works of criminal investigations. At best, government officials, or anyone for that matter, ought to know that words matter, and in the case of South Africa, there was a spike in sales of magnifying glasses and fine-tooth combs after 27 April 1994. And, the people behind the July 2021 unrest may pose an actual (or imagined) threat to the state. They ought to know, also, that context modulates the influence of action; we live in a period of increased public dissatisfaction; increased distrust in the ability of the state to provide the definitive of public goods, security and protection of the public; and the idealistic populism (not all populism is bad) led by ethno-nationalists of a particular kind, tribalists and nativists, and political leaders bearing grudges. In this multiplicity of contexts, of loose lips, when do you criminalise public statements or public incitement? Acts of violence and destruction, and liability for public statements, rest heavier on the state/government than they do on political parties or individuals in public. That the government's security community has investigated all threats to the state (actual or perceived) is necessarily a good thing. That a Cabinet minister has come out and mentioned the likelihood or possibility (not probability) of a coup d'etat is up for discussion. What is necessary, at the least, is to shake off those terrible confirmation biases and prejudices; notions that Africa is the home of coups d'etat; or that Africans are not ready for, or are 'too immature' for democracy. Democracy is not stable, nor static. For the record, states that claim to have been democracies for centuries have dark sides that they would prefer to conceal. varying degrees of 'democratic backsliding' in as many as 40 countries around the world – including the United States. DM
Daily Maverick
4 days ago
- Daily Maverick
Was Trump's Africa summit just outsourcing America's immigration problem?
The US president reportedly asked the five African nations at his summit to accept third-country asylum seekers. United States (US) President Donald Trump hosted a mini-summit with five African leaders in the White House last week. It was surprising that he met with African leaders at all, given his stance towards the continent. His choice of countries was also interesting — why Senegal, Mauritania, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia and Gabon? Trump told the delegates his administration was 'committed to strengthening our friendships in Africa through economic development efforts that benefit both the US and our partners. And we're shifting from aid to trade,' noting that he had just scrapped the US Agency for International Development (USAid). As to the five countries in attendance, he said they all had 'great land, great minerals, oil deposits', and that he wanted to discuss security. Trump encouraged the leaders to invest more in defence and to 'keep pursuing the fight against terrorism, which is a big problem in Africa'. 'Immigration will also be on the agenda, and I hope we can bring down the high rates of people overstaying visas, and also make progress on the Safe Third Country Agreements.' The supposed wealth of these five countries in critical minerals has been offered as the main reason for their invitation. Mauritanian President Mohamed Ould Ghazouani said his country had 'minerals, rare earths, rare minerals', including manganese, uranium and probably lithium, and was the second-largest African iron ore producer. Liberian President Joseph Boakai also said his country had many minerals and asked for US help in surveying them. Trump added an unintentional comic note by commending Boakai for his 'beautiful English'. He asked where Boakai had learnt to speak it — seemingly unaware that English is Liberia's official language. The country was, after all, founded in the 19th century by free slaves from the US. Critical minerals Gabon's President Brice Clotaire Oligui Nguema also stressed that his country had oil and gas and critical minerals, including manganese, and invited the US to invest in processing it locally, including building the necessary electricity capacity. He said that if the US did not invest, others would. And he appealed to Trump to help Gabon stop maritime piracy in the Gulf of Guinea. Senegal's President Bassirou Diomaye Faye noted that the US was conducting a geological survey in Senegal to help assess the potential of minerals. He added that thanks to US companies, Senegal had discovered oil and about 950 billion cubic metres of gas. So critical and other minerals, and oil and gas, were clearly a factor in the choice of the five. So was security in a chronically insecure region. Some believe the US is looking for countries to host its military bases after Niger's junta forced out the US hub at Agadez. Trump also boasted about the recent US-brokered peace deal between the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Rwanda. Most of the African leaders thanked him for this, urging him to fulfil his intention to likewise broker peace in Sudan and Libya. But was immigration to the US — a key domestic issue for Trump — the real heart of the matter? The Wall Street Journal reported that before the summit, the US administration sent the five countries requests to accept deportees from the US whose home countries refused them or were slow to take them back. According to an internal document seen by The Wall Street Journal, the African countries would have to agree not to return transferred asylum seekers 'to their home country or country of former habitual residence until a final decision has been made' on their claims for asylum in the US. This arrangement appears similar to that between the former Conservative United Kingdom (UK) government and Rwanda, but which was scrapped last year by the Labour government, which said the deal had not deterred migrants to the UK. Reports say America previously tried to persuade Nigeria to accept an agreement with Venezuelan deportees — but Abuja refused. This might suggest that Trump is turning to smaller, perhaps more pliable, countries to try to persuade them to accept asylum seekers or deportees. The Guardian reported on Wednesday that five men from Vietnam, Jamaica, Laos, Cuba and Yemen — convicted of crimes ranging from child rape to murder — had arrived in Eswatini on a Safe Third Country deportation flight from the US. On 4 July, the US deported eight men convicted of violent crimes to South Sudan. It is unclear how the five African governments responded to Trump's request, and none mentioned it in the public part of the meeting. Two overlapping goals Institute for Security Studies (ISS) Research Officer Zenge Simakoloyi said Trump's summit seemed mainly to have two overlapping goals: to test the waters on processing asylum seekers offshore, and to diversify US critical mineral supply chains away from China. Nigeria's rejection of the Venezuelans suggested that externalising the US immigration problem would be difficult, he said. According to Aimée-Noël Mbiyozo, ISS Migration Senior Research Consultant: 'There are no good precedents for outsourcing asylum processes.' She noted that the Australian effort to do so had cost at least A$1-billion annually since 2012, and had 'failed to achieve all its objectives, including stopping people smuggling'. Simakoloyi noted that countering China in African trade and mineral access was a hallmark of US foreign policy in Africa, as evidenced by the Lobito Corridor carrying minerals from Zambia and the DRC to be exported from Angola. He suggested Senegal's President Faye could serve the US as a diplomatic bridge to the Sahel's juntas, as Senegal had established a rapport with Mali and Burkina Faso's military governments. Trump's shift from aid to trade and investment in Africa is in principle a good idea, though the abrupt termination of aid has caused significant distress on the continent. (Unconfirmed reports this week suggest that Pepfar – the US programme against HIV/Aids — may be reinstated.) But how the US trades and invests in Africa will be critical. As Gabon's Nguema told Trump: 'We also want our raw materials to be processed locally in our country so that we can create value and to create jobs for youth so that they stop dying. They are crossing the sea, the ocean to go to other countries.' That would be a more constructive and ethical approach to relations than outsourcing the asylum process and dumping criminals from other countries onto Africa. DM
IOL News
11-07-2025
- IOL News
Double standards, and let's band together to save Southside FM and build a better South Africa
Such double standards applied There are moves afoot to impeach Ayman Odeh, a Palestinian member of the Israeli Knesset known for his principled stands against what Israel is doing in Gaza. Military theorist Carl von Clausewitz said: 'War is the continuation of politics by other means.' It is the obverse vis-a-vis Israel's Knesset, for their parliamentary duties have become the perilous as typically the Jewish lawmakers like the apartheid SA lawmakers acted in a similar fashion, with Helen Suzman one of the few active opponents Prime Minister BJ Vorster's war against anyone who opposed his government. And so in the Knesset, being an opponent to apartheid has led to the continuation of war by other means. What was Odeh's crime? In January 2025, soon after the two-month Gaza ceasefire came into effect, he reportedly tweeted that: 'I am happy about the release of the (Israeli) hostages and (Palestinian)prisoners. From here, both peoples (sic) must be freed from the yoke of the occupation. We were all born free.' Scant attention was paid by the 'only democracy in the Middle East', ignoring the parliamentary legal adviser that impeachment was illegal. Nevertheless, it carried on. It looks like the mask of democracy has slipped as (Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu) Bibi's minions mimic their Arab cousins (Arabs and Jews bear a similar bloodline). The next move – Supreme Court action? | Saber Ahmed Jazbhay Newlands Band together save Tamil radio station Southside FM faces financial crisis; Icasa gives 3 month ultimatum', highlights a regrettable reality. The Chatsworth community radio station is facing a critical financial crisis that threatens its very existence. This institution has been a cornerstone of community life, providing a platform for local voices. The South Indian community needs to fully support Southside FM. Let's rally together to save our station. Tamil culture has been an important characteristic that embodies our rich cultural heritage. We need your (community) support to preserve our culture for future generations. It's time for a major shake-up and a new chapter. Maybe it's time for the station to seek more additional vibrant board members, the likes of Morgan and Darsen Nadasen, Merebank Tamil School Society, and Professor Gan Moodley to play a crucial role in shaping the station's future. If elected it will have people making significant contributions towards reaffirming Tamil values, as this is important so it can be passed down to the next generation. Let's make it happen. We owe it to ourselves, our community, and future generations to preserve this vital institution. The fate of our radio station reflects our community's values. We need to act now to ensure that Southside FM continues to thrive. It is unfortunate that staff are volunteering. Hats off to the presenters Thashriya Naidoo, Yogambal Singaram, Lalitha Gurukkal, Daeshni Pather, and not forgetting Station Manager Tansen Nepaul and many others who work tirelessly on a voluntary basis, sacrificing their time, energy, and expertise – you will be richly blessed. It is also unfair for these presenters not to be paid. Something has to be done. I love the quote by Elizabeth Andrew that so aptly expresses puts their devotion into context: 'Volunteers do not necessarily have the time, they just have the heart'. | Dhayalan Moodley Mobeni Heights Let's build on this for the good of SA Minister of Basic Education Siviwe Gwarube's announcement of the Safe Schools Programme is a welcome sign of urgency and intent. School safety is a foundational issue – learners cannot thrive in classrooms where violence, fear or instability are the norm. For too long, South Africa's education debate has been weighed down by basic questions of safety, sanitation, infrastructure and attendance. This programme is an important step forward, but let us be clear: Safety is only the beginning, not the end goal. The real crisis in education is not just about safety, but about outcomes – and what those outcomes mean for the future of our economy. We are in the grip of a long-term unemployment crisis, especially among the youth. And while government and civil society focus on interventions to stimulate job creation, too often they ignore the truth: Jobs don't just appear – they are built by entrepreneurs. The question is whether our education system is producing the kinds of learners who will go on to create businesses, innovate products, and grow industries. Right now the answer is no. If we truly want to prepare learners for life beyond the classroom, we must go beyond ensuring safety. We must commit to building schools that nurture entrepreneurial thinking, problem-solving, curiosity and digital fluency, because that's where job creation really begins – not in a policy, but in a classroom that gives every child the confidence and tools to dream big and build boldly. Gwarube has opened the door, now let's walk through it and transform our schools from safe zones into launch pads for a thriving business ecosystem in South Africa. | Nicole Mirkin CEO at Omnia Strategic Counsel & Communications Digging an even deeper hole for itself Israel will only be digging a deeper hole for itself internationally if it proceeds with a plan outlined by its Defence Minister Israel Katz to eventually forcibly relocate the entire Palestinian population to a 'humanitarian city' on the ruins of Rafah in the south of the Gaza Strip, from where they will be unable to leave once relocated. | Eric Palm Gympie, Australia Have we truly lose our critical thinking? If you can create a global crisis, you can promote a global solution, right? Successful and famous businessmen and philanthropists such as Bill Gates, George Soros and Klaus Schwab are masters of making us believe that if we do not agree with them or go along with their sick ideas for a better future, we are the problem. Think of the 2020 Covid Pandemic, so-called global warming and other potentially dangerous, but highly fabricated, man-made dilemmas, such as water or food shortages. They were all designed to make you believe that if we don't do something quickly, or if don't trust the global elites and unelected oligarchs, something terrible will happen if we do not heed their calls. Meanwhile, the opposite is true, but any attempt to discredit these obscenely rich know-it-alls, is drowned out or deemed to be 'misinformation/disinformation. When you hear woke doomsday prophets, such as Greta Thunberg spew garbage about the planet busy dying from too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, Bill Gates warning us of the 'next global pandemic, or Klaus Schwab – whose brainchild is the World Economic Forum – tells you that you will 'own nothing and be happy', you know that its time to start asking some serious questions. How did these unelected bullies get so wealthy, influential and arrogant, and why do we listen to them? When the World Economic Forum suggests that we should start eating crickets and bugs instead of meat, due to rising carbon dioxide levels in the Earth's atmosphere, are we honestly going to believe this rubbish? It's scary that so many people believe these lies and spend 99% of their lives with their heads buried deep in the sand. Can we not think for ourselves anymore? Have we lost the ability to think critically? A big threat to our privacy is the rise of CBDC's, or Central Bank Digital Currencies, and digital ID. Could you imagine the immense power that would be given to any government if we allow them to track our every move and transaction. This is already happening in some parts of the world, such as Scotland and Australia and other first-world countries. | L Oosthuizen Durban DAILY NEWS
