Alpha Conde by Noah Sheldon (noahsheldon.com)

Last week, I had the opportunity to sit down with Alpha Conde, a candidate in Guinea’s upcoming election, and a longtime opposition leader–and, possibly, the next president of this small West African nation.

Conde could be called a political survivor–in a nation where political battles have been waged with increasing violence over the past 18 months.

A bit of background: Conde came to politics from academia. He ran against Guinea’s longtime junta leader, Lansana Conte, in elections in the 1990s. Lasanta Conte claimed those elections and Conde faced arrest, imprisonment and, at one point, a lengthy political trial.

Not to rehash recent events in Guinea, but a coup government led by army captain Moussa Dadis Camara took power in late 2008. Since then, a series of cataclysms major and minor, have left Guinea’s political future at it’s most uncertain since it declared independence  from France in 1958. Yet, with a new transitional government nominally in charge and elections scheduled for June, it appears that Guinea could avoid the rote West African coup-counter-coup-civil-war storyline. Conde recently visited New York, by way Tripoli, to meet with business leaders and philanthropist George Soros, taking a few minutes to answer some questions.

Here’s a portion* of our conversation–with special thanks to Sarah (who translated the audio) and Noah (who shot this portrait).

What do you attribute this sudden shift towards democracy?

I never thought Dadis would stay. Because the coup was led by colonel Sekouba. But when he did the coup, he was not interested in power. When the army [took power] he said, no, I give the power to Dadis. But that was the agreement they had: to organise elections and then leave. That was the agreement. It was not Dadis who did the coup, it was Konate. So Dadis deviated from their agreement and Konate did not approve. He had always said, that once the elections were organized, he had to leave. He never agreed. Then there were the events of September 28^th and since Dadis had given the authority in the face of a national coup, he wanted to send the army into combat. Because Dadis had created an army within the army. If he had stayed, we would have had a civil war. He had recruited Israeli and South African mercenaries to form a militia inside the army. But we were lucky that the head of his own militia was the one who shot him. And General Sekouba went to meet Dadis in [Burkina Faso] and told him he was a traitor, a liar, he had reneged on the agreement. They had agreed to organize elections because for him, the army can no longer govern Africa. It’s over. The people do not want the military in power. He is committed to free, democratic, transparent elections. So, there was the will power of General Sekouba, the eye of God –not the hand of God, like in sport, like in the match between France and Ireland- but God did help since it was Toumba [Diakite], who was meant to…who shot Dadis. And because Sekouba always wanted to see the country having elections, means that he now the primary guarantor of a democratic and swift transition towards elections.

A lot of Western critics have voiced concern that there will be an election, but the military will retain power. What is your assessment of that?

No, no, no. Why? Because today the people of Guinea, in its vast majority, is mobilized for change. And General Sekouba is reshaping the army, with help from the US –there is an American delegation over there right now- and with help from France and the UN. They are helping him transform the army, which will now be at the service of civilians… Therefore, because of this cooperation, they have decided to reform the army during and after the transition period, so that the guinean army becomes a normal army. France is also part of this agreement. Morocco will provide military assistance. The UN too…the West has decided –following the US and France- to help Guinea create the conditions for a normal army. There is no threat anymore that the army will conduct a coup. First of all, he [Sekouba] wants to leave straight after the elections. He does not want to stay. He wants to create a foundation. I do not foresee that tomorrow we will have a civil government that is manipulated by the army. The proof – he has left. The opposition won. There is no manipulation nowadays. In Guinea today there is more consciousness, and as a result, we will no longer tolerate military occupation.

What is your and RPG’s vision for Guinea?

Guinea, in the late 50s, was destined to be the motor of West Africa. Fifty years later, we’re at the back of the line. We have the potential to become that motor once again, over the next five years. Therefore, our project is threefold: a 100 day program, a mid-term program and a five year program. In the first hundred days, we will implement all the reforms necessary to start putting Guinea back on track. Within two and a half years, we must resolve some of the fundamental problems. And after five years, we must be solidly back on track. Therefore, our vision today is change. We want Guinea to become what it was in ’58, when it said “NO,” and gave the example to the rest of West Africa. Today we want Guinea to lead by example in economic development, just like it did with independence. The potential is there. Because we have natural resources. We have mechanical resources and human resources. As I was saying earlier, Guinea, in a way, is like the US in the 19^th century: why? Because some came from Prague, Czechoslovakia, Germany, from all over, already qualified – qualified workers who were ready to enter the workforce. That is what facilitated economic development. Guinea is in a similar place. We have workers in the US, Canada, Germany, France, but when you are in the US, you have to work like an American or they kick you out. And tomorrow, a part of –they won’t all come back- but part of that qualified workforce will return. Bringing with them the working methods from those countries. And the melting pot that has been the heart of the US will be the heart of Guinea. And then there is youth – don’t forget that 70% of Africans are under 30. By associating the qualified workforce with those who don’t have training but know the terrain, we will ensure our nation’s growth. Our vision is to transfor the informal productive sector–cobblers, artisans… Our objective is to produce what we consume and consume what we produce. We are capable of producing shoes, rugs, etc, because we have shoemakers and weavers. That’s producing what we consume. Now we need to consume what we produce. Meaning, if shoemakers are making shoes but that guy says all he’ll wear is Italian shoes, it won’t work. It means we need to accept wearing the shoes that our shoemakers are making. Then we develop the market and we become as successful as the Italians. Producing what we consume, we will have no need for importing shoes, and consuming what we produce will encourage development and growth. A shoemaker here can make the shoes, but doesn’t have the capacity to produce on a large scale. He can make ten pairs of shoes a day. If you give him the means to produce two hundred, three hundred pairs a day, he can produce enough shoes for Guinea. But that assumes that we are happy to consume what is made in Guinea, over what is imported. We are self-sufficient where food is concerned, and we are going towards a transformation of small to mid-scale enterprise. Because those people have already mastered the technology, what is missing is production. It also means that, parallel to the teaching of French and English, we must develop national tongues. Because they know Fula. So, if we develop the Fula alphabet, they can work on any machine, because the instructions will be written in Fula, and they already know it.

Education must serve development. That is why I tell students that we are going to have to steer them towards certain careers. If we need to train fifty doctors and ten law professors, we can’t allow fifty people to study law. We will tell them, listen, it would be better for you to study medicine…There is no point in training fifty lawyers if we only need ten and forty will be unemployed. So if there are sixty, we will have to send fifty to medical school and ten to law school. Education at the service of economic development.

* Note: Elipsis indicate unintelligible portions of the recording.