When I announced my candidacy for the presidency of Ivory Coast earlier this year, I had certain expectations of what the campaign would entail: long journeys to meet voters in small towns, spirited debates with my opponents on national television and late nights poring over polling data.
Six months later, those expectations seem quaint. With October’s presidential election approaching, the electoral process has become entangled in endless legal battles. Instead of engaging with voters on the campaign trail, I have had to spend too much of my time confined to meeting rooms, surrounded by legal advisers.
In May, my name was removed from the ballot after a court ruled that the French citizenship I held at the time I announced my candidacy invalidated my Ivorian citizenship. This ruling enforced a legal provision that, despite having existed since 1961, had never been applied to any dual national. As a result, I was declared ineligible to run for or hold high office.
Although I renounced my French citizenship in March, the Independent Electoral Commission (ICE) claims it was too late and insists that there is not enough time before the October presidential election to reinstate my name on the ballot. This position is especially confounding, given that I am far from a fringe candidate. In 2023, I was elected leader of the Democratic Party of Ivory Coast-African Democratic Rally (PDCI-RDA), the country’s main opposition party, with 96.5 percent of the delegates’ votes. Multiple polls suggest I would win a head-to-head race against Ivory Coast President Alassane Ouattara, should he choose to run for a fourth term.
I am not the only opposition leader being forced out of the race. Also excluded from the recently finalized electoral list are former Ivory Coast president Laurent Gbagbo, his longtime ally Charles Ble Goude, and exiled former Ivory Coast prime minister Guillaume Soro. Together with my disqualification, these exclusions have led many observers to question whether the October election could truly be considered competitive.
As matters stand, the more likely scenario is that Ouattara — should he confirm his intention to seek re-election — would face little to no credible opposition in his bid for a fourth consecutive term. Such an outcome would be disastrous for Ivory Coast, effectively accelerating the country’s slide toward one-party, if not one-man rule.
Unsurprisingly, Ouattara’s government denies any judicial interference, but such denials have done little to assuage growing concerns among the public that the legal system is being weaponized to crush any opposition leader who might stand a chance of winning the presidency.
To be sure, the rise of electoral authoritarianism is not unique to Ivory Coast. We have seen the same tactics deployed in other countries, where the courts are used to silence opposition voices and preserve the “status quo.” However, Ivory Coast’s tumultuous recent history makes this especially dangerous. Most notably, a disputed election in 2010 plunged the country into a brutal civil war that claimed the lives of at least 3,000 people.
We owe it to our citizens to do better. That is why I am calling for calm and appealing to the UN Human Rights Committee to review my case.
The great tragedy is that the current wave of lawfare is diverting attention from the urgent issues facing Ivory Coast. In a country where the life expectancy is only 62 years — lower than in both Liberia and Mauritania — we should focus on rebuilding our healthcare system. Given that Ivorian schools rank 13th out of 14 Francophone African countries in mathematics, fixing our broken education system should be a national priority. Ivory Coast’s recent addition to the Financial Action Task Force’s Grey List for money laundering should prompt a serious discussion about crime prevention and financial transparency.
Instead, we find ourselves trapped in a bogus legal process, drifting toward sham elections and deepening authoritarianism. A small clique has been allowed to corrupt our institutions and weaponize the machinery of the state to suppress civil society.
This is no way to run a country. On our current trajectory, Ivory Coast is at risk of plunging once again into the crises of the past. Only a truly democratic Ivory Coast could deliver the stability necessary to drive the country forward and build lasting prosperity for its people.
In a region where poverty and instability have too often been the norm, I believe Ivory Coast has the potential to become a beacon of progress, but if we let the guardrails of democracy break down, we will squander that opportunity.
Tidjane Thiam is president of the Democratic Party of the Ivory Coast-African Democratic Rally.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
China has not been a top-tier issue for much of the second Trump administration. Instead, Trump has focused considerable energy on Ukraine, Israel, Iran, and defending America’s borders. At home, Trump has been busy passing an overhaul to America’s tax system, deporting unlawful immigrants, and targeting his political enemies. More recently, he has been consumed by the fallout of a political scandal involving his past relationship with a disgraced sex offender. When the administration has focused on China, there has not been a consistent throughline in its approach or its public statements. This lack of overarching narrative likely reflects a combination
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
For nearly eight decades, Taiwan has provided a home for, and shielded and nurtured, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After losing the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the KMT fled to Taiwan, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of soldiers, along with people who would go on to become public servants and educators. The party settled and prospered in Taiwan, and it developed and governed the nation. Taiwan gave the party a second chance. It was Taiwanese who rebuilt order from the ruins of war, through their own sweat and tears. It was Taiwanese who joined forces with democratic activists
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) held a news conference to celebrate his party’s success in surviving Saturday’s mass recall vote, shortly after the final results were confirmed. While the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) would have much preferred a different result, it was not a defeat for the DPP in the same sense that it was a victory for the KMT: Only KMT legislators were facing recalls. That alone should have given Chu cause to reflect, acknowledge any fault, or perhaps even consider apologizing to his party and the nation. However, based on his speech, Chu showed
RSS