Signs of growing anger at the restrained denunciation of Pennsylvania-based Muslim cleric Fethullah Gulen - whose followers are thought to have played a key role in the attempted coup - are being vocalised more and more, but this criticism only shows part of the true picture.

It is true that prominent liberal Turkish intellectual Soli Ozel spoke for many when he criticised EU politicians and Western media for failing to recognise the “invaluable democratic resistance shown by all political parties in a parliament bombed by war planes”, as well as demonstrating “a lack of sensitivity, empathy and solidarity that cannot be easily digested” by not sending anyone from an EU institution to offer solidarity with the Turkish parliament.

The criticism is reasonable - officials from Western governments and regional institutions such as the Council of Europe exhibited unconditional solidarity with Ukraine during its bitter feud with Russia, which leads some to believe that Muslim-majority Turkey does not apparently deserve the same treatment as its neighbours also experiencing an unlawful attempt to seize control of the state.

Moral authority at risk

It is also right that the West should have censured the coup plotters more forcefully and built upon Turkey’s fragile unity to encourage the country to pursue further democratic reform. To quote former Swedish Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Carl Bildt: “Europe risks losing its moral authority if it does not appear particularly engaged in dealing with the coup itself.”

In addition, the EU’s strong criticism of Turkey but not France, for imposing a state of emergency and for temporarily suspending the European Convention on Human Rights, undeniably, smacks of double-standards.

However, some of the criticism falls short. To begin with, the West’s tepidity can be explained (though not wholly justified) by Erdogan’s abrasive behaviour at home and towards Western and international media.

Just three days after the coup, Erdogan threatened in his characteristically defiant tone to revive the controversial construction plans that sparked the 2013 Gezi Park protests, saying: “If we want to preserve our history, we must rebuild this historic [Ottoman-era barracks] structure, [and] we will rebuild it.”

It is also fair for Turkey to be reproached for the widespread crackdown against tens of thousands of suspected Gulenists in the aftermath of the coup. Even if it is conceivable that all 1,577 university deans who were forced to resign were Gulenists, this action will also have a lasting negative impact on the reputations and career prospects of academics unconnected to Gulen.

Fervour against Gulenism

The vigilance by the West is understandable given the Turkish government’s fervour against Gulenism in the immediate post-coup period. It would make no sense for the West to attack the coup and yet, at the same time, equivocate on flagrant violations of due process and human rights. Both efforts are mutually inclusive and identifying such violations has the greatest potential to encourage policy reversals or corrective measures.

Similarly understandable is the attention on Erdogan himself. He is the most formidable and powerful figure in a hierarchical and top-down political system, able to make fateful decisions with few effective checks and balances. He single-handedly replaced Ahmet Davutoglu as prime minister with Binali Yildirim in a clear breach of the Turkish constitution.

Despite Erdogan’s tactical attempts at embracing all the opposition parties apart from the pro-Kurdish Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP), his refusal to renounce his ambition to transform Turkey into a powerful executive presidency indicates that this fragile political unity will not last.

Only the West has the wherewithal to moderate his policies by continuing to express its friendship with Turkey, whilst not shying away from closely monitoring, scrutinising and commenting on the post-coup developments.

Want to comment on this article?

Contact Chatham House Feedback

Join the conversation about this piece on Facebook

The vote to impeach Donald Trump holds almost no surprises - on both the abuse of power and obstruction of congress articles, the votes were split entirely on party lines with nearly all the majority-led House Democrats but not a single Republican voting to impeach Trump.

However, this ‘pre-ordained’ outcome of the House impeachment inquiry does serve to highlight that the US is in the midst of a hyper-partisan political moment. Policy gridlock has led to two government shutdowns during Donald Trump’s presidency, with one further budgetary fight narrowly avoided.

With a few notable exceptions (such as USMCA), policy areas that lend themselves to bipartisanship - including infrastructure and drug pricing - have seen very little progress under divided congressional chambers. Party identification can now be overlaid with the cable news channel one watches or the newspaper one reads.

Impeachment now moves to the Senate for a trial, requiring a two-thirds majority of the Republican-led senate (or 67 senators) for a conviction. Given the congressional partisanship we are seeing, the baseline scenario continues to be that the senate will not vote to convict Trump and remove him from office - despite much being made of how many senators are likely to vote for a Senate conviction.

Why public opinion could be crucial

There is another story to keep a close eye on. The number to track is 47.2 – the current polling average of public support for Trump’s impeachment. Polling averages from the end of September 2019 (before the hearings began, but after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced a formal inquiry) had 49.4% supporting impeachment versus 47.2% this week.

Here’s why this number matters. If those pushing for impeachment and removal are unable to drive popular support across a critical threshold level, then those against impeachment and removal are not going to abandon the president and vote for a senate conviction. With Trump consistently polling in the low 40s on job approval, but in the high 80s/low 90s within the Republican party, this means Republican congress members concerned about re-election are extremely hesitant to distance themselves from him without a clear mandate from the domestic public. 

A tale of the two most recent presidents to face impeachment underscores this point. Gallup polling claimed 58% of adults supported impeaching and removing President Richard Nixon from office in August 1974, whereas only 35% of the public supported impeaching President Bill Clinton in December 1998, the month he was impeached.

Given the respective outcomes of those two impeachments, it suggests public support for impeachment and removal needs to increase well beyond the current 47.2%, to avoid the foregone conclusion of acquittal in the Senate (even if there are signs of the tide moving in the opposite direction with those against impeachment overtaking support for the first time in December).   

What does this mean for Democrats?

In the short term, if the Democrats want to make inroads into the hearts and minds of those across the partisan gulf, it will be critical to secure senate testimony from those in Trump’s inner circle at the time of the Ukrainian affair.

After Trump ordered individuals with first-hand knowledge of the administration’s efforts vis-à-vis Ukraine not to testify, House investigators were unable to call many witnesses with direct evidence (which in fact left the House testimony exposed to Republican claims of hearsay). With Trump impeached, more of the public is likely to tune in to the senate proceedings, and direct evidence by inner circle administration officials required to testify presents an opportunity to move public opinion.

House speaker Nancy Pelosi recognizes how crucial the procedures and participants for the senate trial will be, and has said she could delay sending the articles of impeachment to the senate as leverage for a 'fair trial'.

Democrats also have to consider how an impeachment inquiry that - at least from this vantage point - does not end in a conviction of the president plays out for the 2020 election campaign, especially if this also likely means that public opinion - and certainly Republican-party views - of Trump have not shifted.

Africa’s dinosaur leaders are members of an increasingly small and unstable club. Popular protests last year forced Algeria’s president, Abdelaziz Bouteflika, out of office after almost 20 years in power, as well as Sudan’s president, Omar al-Bashir, who ruled for 30 years. In 2017, Robert Mugabe was deposed in a military coup (although this was denied) after 40 years. 
And in 2011, mass protests led to the downfall of Tunisia’s president, Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali, after he had been in power for 23 years.

Somewhat smoother are the political transitions in Angola and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). José Eduardo dos Santos, after almost 38 years in power, stepped down from office in 2017 as his term ended. So did his younger neighbour, Joseph Kabila, in January 2019, after 18 years in the presidency.

What the six former leaders had in common was that they wanted to remain heads of state and considered succession planning or stepping down only as a last resort. This year will be crucial for the six countries in political transition particularly as the reform-window period is short.

From A to Z 

Algeria: Tens of thousands of protesters have rallied in the capital Algiers and other cities against the December 2019 elections, rejecting what they see as sham transitional politics. A soft landing for Algeria in 2020 is unlikely, and what happens in the year has significant regional implications.

Angola: A transition is under way, led by President João Lourenço. This shift is smoother than many others, but 2020 will be the watershed year. The country has been in economic recession for four years but is predicted to see gross domestic product growth in 2020. Investment and job creation will determine the pace of change. The honeymoon period has ended and there are signs of increasing frustration among the urban youth and the middle class.

DRC: Despite his constitutionally mandated term expiring in December 2016, Joseph Kabila continued his presidency by continuously postponing elections until 30 December 2018. This election saw a three-way contest between the Union for Democracy and Social Progress (UDSP), the Engagement for Citizenship and Development party and the People’s Party for Reconstruction and Democracy (PPRD). Fèlix Tshisekedi of the UDSP was declared the winner by the Independent National Electoral Commission on January 10 last year with 38.6% votes. He was followed by Martin Fayulu of the Engagement for Citizenship and Development party, with 34.8%. He denounced the election results. In third place was Emmanuel Ramazani Shadary, of the PPRD, a key ally of Kabila.

Although this was the first peaceful transition of power in DRC, there were widespread electoral inconsistencies and some observers believed that Fayulu was the legitimate winner. In 2020 it will become clearer whether a genuine transition from Kabila’s influence is taking place.

Sudan: More promising than the DRC or Algeria, a 39-month transitional administration led by a technocratic prime minister, Abdalla Hamdok, has been established and enjoys domestic and international goodwill. This honeymoon is likely to be short, and the transitional administration needs to show results. The United States can help by removing Sudan from its terror list, thereby lifting the de facto ban on Sudan’s access to the dollar-based international financial system.

Tunisia: A low-profile, conservative law professor beat a charismatic media magnate released from prison in the presidential election runoff in October 2019. Kais Saied won 70% of the vote and his victory and the putting together of a new governing coalition is another step forward in an open-ended democratic transition that started in 2011 after Ben Ali fell.

Zimbabwe: This is a deeply troubled transition with an acute foreign exchange liquidity crisis, a deteriorating economy, hyperinflation and underperforming government. The state’s clinics and hospitals are closed or turn away patients as medical supplies run out and the doctors’ strike over decimated wages continues. There are power outages and almost half of the people face hunger and starvation as a result of drought and the economic crisis.

Zimbabwe’s 2020 looks bleak, a far cry from the euphoria of two years ago when a “military assisted transition” removed Mugabe and replaced him with Emmerson Mnangagwa.

More changes coming

So what do these political developments in 2019 tell us more broadly?

Long-standing leaders have been persistent in Africa, despite the end of single-party rule in favour of a multiparty system. About a fifth of all African heads of state since independence can be classed as long-standing leaders — in power for more than a decade — and only five countries have never experienced one. But the trend is in decline.

It remains most resilient in central Africa and in the Great Lakes regions. Cracks are appearing in their citadels in Malabo and Kampala, but in 2019 Equatorial Guinea’s President Teodoro Obiang Mbasogo celebrated 40 years in power and Uganda’s Yoweri Museveni 33 years.

Will there be any more departures from the dinosaurs club in 2020?

One of the shortest serving members of this club, President Pierre Nkurunziza (14 years in power) has said he will not stand for the 2020 elections in Burundi, although this is uncertain given that a 2018 constitutional referendum could allow him to stay in power until 2034. Togo’s Faure Gnassingbé (14 years in power) will stand for re-election to the presidency again after Parliament in 2019 approved a constitutional change permitting him to potentially stay in office until 2030.

Amending constitutions to change term limits so that incumbent leaders can run for office is a favoured tactic. Rwanda’s Paul Kagame (19 years in office) and the Republic of Congo’s Denis Sassou Nguesso (25 years in power) have done this. But Eritrea’s Isaias Afwerki has never held an election during his 16 years in power.

Attempts at dynasties have been less successful, such as with Grace Mugabe in Zimbabwe or Gamal Mubarak in Egypt, but Obiang is grooming his playboy son Teodorin to succeed him and Gabon’s Ali Bongo and Togo’s Gnassingbé both succeeded their fathers.

The year is a reminder that more of these long-standing leaders will, in 2020 and beyond, step down or die. Most long-standing leaders in Africa are over the age of 70, with Paul Biya, aged 86, having served 37 years as Cameroon’s president.

Some former leaders capitulated under internal pressure: in Algeria, Sudan, Tunisia and Zimbabwe. Only in Angola and the DRC was a transition process organized as part of an elite bargain.

What the political transitions have in common is that honeymoons are short and that, whether they are led by interim administrations or elected leaders, they need to deliver political and socioeconomic improvements to succeed, but have inherited shambolic economies. Their success depends on accountable political leadership and domestic and international support.

This article was originally published by the Mail & Guardian.

The vote to impeach Donald Trump holds almost no surprises - on both the abuse of power and obstruction of congress articles, the votes were split entirely on party lines with nearly all the majority-led House Democrats but not a single Republican voting to impeach Trump.

However, this ‘pre-ordained’ outcome of the House impeachment inquiry does serve to highlight that the US is in the midst of a hyper-partisan political moment. Policy gridlock has led to two government shutdowns during Donald Trump’s presidency, with one further budgetary fight narrowly avoided.

With a few notable exceptions (such as USMCA), policy areas that lend themselves to bipartisanship - including infrastructure and drug pricing - have seen very little progress under divided congressional chambers. Party identification can now be overlaid with the cable news channel one watches or the newspaper one reads.

Impeachment now moves to the Senate for a trial, requiring a two-thirds majority of the Republican-led senate (or 67 senators) for a conviction. Given the congressional partisanship we are seeing, the baseline scenario continues to be that the senate will not vote to convict Trump and remove him from office - despite much being made of how many senators are likely to vote for a Senate conviction.

Why public opinion could be crucial

There is another story to keep a close eye on. The number to track is 47.2 – the current polling average of public support for Trump’s impeachment. Polling averages from the end of September 2019 (before the hearings began, but after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced a formal inquiry) had 49.4% supporting impeachment versus 47.2% this week.

Here’s why this number matters. If those pushing for impeachment and removal are unable to drive popular support across a critical threshold level, then those against impeachment and removal are not going to abandon the president and vote for a senate conviction. With Trump consistently polling in the low 40s on job approval, but in the high 80s/low 90s within the Republican party, this means Republican congress members concerned about re-election are extremely hesitant to distance themselves from him without a clear mandate from the domestic public. 

A tale of the two most recent presidents to face impeachment underscores this point. Gallup polling claimed 58% of adults supported impeaching and removing President Richard Nixon from office in August 1974, whereas only 35% of the public supported impeaching President Bill Clinton in December 1998, the month he was impeached.

Given the respective outcomes of those two impeachments, it suggests public support for impeachment and removal needs to increase well beyond the current 47.2%, to avoid the foregone conclusion of acquittal in the Senate (even if there are signs of the tide moving in the opposite direction with those against impeachment overtaking support for the first time in December).   

What does this mean for Democrats?

In the short term, if the Democrats want to make inroads into the hearts and minds of those across the partisan gulf, it will be critical to secure senate testimony from those in Trump’s inner circle at the time of the Ukrainian affair.

After Trump ordered individuals with first-hand knowledge of the administration’s efforts vis-à-vis Ukraine not to testify, House investigators were unable to call many witnesses with direct evidence (which in fact left the House testimony exposed to Republican claims of hearsay). With Trump impeached, more of the public is likely to tune in to the senate proceedings, and direct evidence by inner circle administration officials required to testify presents an opportunity to move public opinion.

House speaker Nancy Pelosi recognizes how crucial the procedures and participants for the senate trial will be, and has said she could delay sending the articles of impeachment to the senate as leverage for a 'fair trial'.

Democrats also have to consider how an impeachment inquiry that - at least from this vantage point - does not end in a conviction of the president plays out for the 2020 election campaign, especially if this also likely means that public opinion - and certainly Republican-party views - of Trump have not shifted.