U.S. President Barack Obama has won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. The Norwegian Nobel Committee said Obama had been awarded the prize for his calls to reduce the world's stockpiles of nuclear weapons and work towards restarting the stalled Middle East peace process.

The committee praised Obama for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."

"Very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future."

The laureate wins a gold medal, a diploma and 10 million Swedish crowns (1.4 million dollars or 878,000 pounds).

Obama was one of a record 205 nominees for this year's prize and the decision has come as a surprise to many. Zimbabwe's Prime Minister, Morgan Tsvangirai, had been tipped as one of the favourites.

Despite his ambitious international agenda, Obama is yet to make a significant breakthrough in the Middle East or effectively deal with the threat of Iran's nuclear programme and his country is currently fighting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Has Obama done enough to justify winning the Nobel Peace Prize? If not, who do you think should have won?

Ghana’s epic nail-biter of an election has finally ended with opposition leader John Atta Mills being declared the winner by the narrowest of margins: barely 40,000 votes out of 9 million, or less than 0.5 percent of votes from the past week’s run-off.

Virtually everybody was expecting a close race, but the contest got tighter and increasingly acrimonious as both rival camps sensed power was within their reach. As the vote went down to the wire, to be decided with delayed voting held in one final constituency on Jan 2, the ruling New National Party (NNP) announced a boycott and launched legal proceedings to postpone the poll and freeze the announcement of results. 
 
After a year that has seen electoral bloodshed in Kenya and Zimbabwe one analyst who has followed the vote closely warned that incidents of violence during the polls indicated Ghana “may be coming close to that abyss of no-return”.
 
Yet shortly after the Electoral Commission announced results on Saturday, Akufo-Addo conceded defeat, congratulated Mills and both candidates were stressing the need for cooperation and consensus between their two parties.

What a difference a few hours makes - although Whether they are able to make that promise a reality for the party rank and file caught up in the bitter rivalries of the past few months, only time will tell.
 
So what was all the fuss about? By the most alarming interpretations, Ghana has stepped back from the brink of chaos. Others say it was just healthy competition.
 
Some observers say the simple fact the country’s institutions, especially its Electoral Commission, were able to cope with such a tense, tight race and ensure both sides respected the results, is proof of the deep roots democracy has in Ghana. That is a point of pride for many Ghanaians aware of their country’s history as the first sub-Saharan colony to achieve independence and one of the first to adopt democratic politics under outspoken former coup-leader Jerry Rawlings, who appointed Mills as his vice-president in the 1990s.
 
So is the bitter wrangling between the two main parties a “slur on Ghana’s democratic credentials”, as one analyst put it? Or should the country be proud that even such a hard-fought election should end without widespread violence? Do the past month’s elections show Ghana’s democracy is alive and well, or expose its weaknesses? How does it compare with elections elsewhere in Africa? And, given many people say there is little difference between the manifestoes of the centre-right NPP and Mills’s centre-left National Democratic Congress (NDC), was the election worth the risk?

(Picture: Supporters of Mills of opposition NDC party celebrate their candidate’s win after elections in Accra. Luc Gnago / Reuters)

South Africans have widely greeted new President Kgalema Motlanthe, many of them with a sense of relief after the bitter and divisive power struggle between his ousted predecessor Thabo Mbeki and Jacob Zuma, leader of the ruling African National Congress.

Motlanthe, quiet spoken and dignified, struck exactly the note the public were looking for when he took office, sober but smiling gently - a huge contrast to the theatrical ebullience of Zuma and the aloof, intellectual style of Mbeki, who was seen as arrogant and out of touch with his people.

The sense of relief was palpable on Friday.

“Motlanthe restores order” said the front page headline of Johannesburg’s Star newspaper, over a picture of the new president swearing the oath of office. “New leader steers SA to calm,” said the Pretoria News. “For now the country has at its head a nice and largely untainted man with not much ego who doesn’t think he knows everything and who listens to people. You can almost feel the relief in the republic,” Business Day said in an editorial.

But Motlanthe’s honeymoon may not last.

He must try to end an unprecedented battle inside the ANC while his country, Africa’s biggest economy, faces serious stresses including record inflation, slowing growth and a power supply crisis that has hit vital platinum and gold mines. Yet, he has little room for manoeuvre. Although fully accepted as the third president since the end of apartheid, he is seen only as an interim leader, holding the fort until Zuma takes over after elections expected around April next year.

This will make it difficult even to make a mark, without arousing suspicions that he wants the permanent job himself–something that many South Africans would welcome.

Ironically this suspicion, if allowed to grow amongst Zuma’s militant allies within the party, could create new divisions instead of allowing Motlanthe to do the job for which he has mainly been elected — gluing back together the once monolithic ANC which is now torn by rifts that have distracted policy makers from addressing huge economic and social problems including persistent and widespread black poverty, an AIDS epidemic and rampant crime.

He has promised to stick with the economic policies of Mbeki, who presided over South Africa’s longest period of growth, but is already under pressure from Zuma’s leftist allies to shift policy away from protecting investors and towards rapidly spreading the fruits of black rule. On Friday, his first day in office, the powerful COSATU trade union confederation called on him to eradicate policy and create jobs.

Can Motlanthe make a difference and end South Africa’s instability? Could he eventually dislodge Zuma to become the next president? Or will he just leave problems untouched until the election? What do you think?

For Zimbabwe’s long-suffering people, the true meaning of the signing of a power-sharing agreement between President Robert Mugabe’s ZANU-PF and the opposition MDC would be how quickly it leads to an improvement in their daily lives. An economic crisis that began in 1998 has turned the once prosperous Southern African country into a basket case economy with the world’s highest inflation at over 11 million percent. Millions of Zimbabwean’s who have fled across the borders to escape unemployment and severe shortages are waiting to see if the political deal will result in economic rebound paving the way for their return.

The agreement negotiated by South African President Thabo Mbeki provides for the sharing of power between veteran President Robert Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai, leader of the main opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC). Tsvangirai takes on the new role of Prime Minister with extensive powers, with Mugabe’s 28-year hold on power significantly eroded.

But will Tsvangirai wield sufficient powers to place the new coalition government on a new policy track needed for rapid economic reform? Will the international community be confident enough to unlock the needed economic rescue package to help accelerate economic change? How quickly can the collapsed commercial farming sector start to turn around? How will business raect to the new deal? Most important, how quickly will ordinary Zimbabweans begin to feel the impact of the power-sharing deal? Read the following insights from two leading analysts and have your say.

Marian L. Tupy, The Cato Institute

“The government should trust the ingenuity of the Zimbabwean people and allow their creative energies to rebuild teh country with minimum bureaucratic hindrance.” (Read full analysis)

John Makumbe, University of Zimbabwe

“The major political party, the MDC, has devised a very promising economic recovery and rehabilitation programme for the transitional period. It is my considered view that if that programme is effectively implemented, the Zimbabwean economy could recover within as short a period as two to three years.” (Read full analysis)

 John Makumbe, University of Zimbabwe

 The signing of an agreement between Robert Mugabe’s ZanuPF party and the two formations of the MDC marks the beginning of an exciting period in the political history of Zimbabwe. The national economy has been devastated by, inter alia, disastrous political and economic policies formulated and implemented by the Mugabe regime. Fortunately, most of the development and economic infrastructure still remains largely intact, and the Zimbabwean economy could recover from the current meltdown in a fairly short time.

Zimbabweans are reputed to be hard-working people. Although many highly skilled Zimbabweans have since left the country for greener pastures both in the region and further afield, the country still boasts a highly skilled labour force.

There is also significant goodwill from several developed countries, and some of them have already promised to provide significant amounts of money to assist Zimbabwe in its economic recovery programme.

The major political party, the MDC, has devised a very promising economic recovery and rehabilitation programme for the transitional period. It is my considered view that if that programme is effectively implemented, the Zimbabwean economy could recover within as short a period as two to three years. Part of the MDC’s RESTART programme seeks to attract both domestic and foreign direct investment in order to revive previously existing industries as well as expand the ones that are currently operating at 25% to 30% of their original capacity. The RESTART programme also seeks to encourage as many skilled Zimbabweans as possible to return home and help in re-building the shattered economy.

Several development co-operation agencies have already indicated their interest in resuming or renegotiating appropriate development assistance programmes with the new and inclusive government of Zimbabwe. The RESTART programme will also focus on the revival of the crucial agricultural sector by, for example, creating a land commission to examine such matters as multiple land holding practices, under-utilisation of arable land, and the critical shortage of agricultural inputs. The restoration of a vibrant agricultural sector will re-energise the Zimbabwean economy to recovery in a very short time, indeed.
 

Nigerian President Umaru Yar’Adua left for Saudi Arabia more than two weeks ago for the Islamic obligation of the lesser Hajj, a pilgrimage to Mecca. Yar’Adua, who is known to have a chronic kidney problem, has sought medical attention in Jeddah and has still not returned, raising fears about the state of his health. A medical source in Saudi Arabia told Reuters he had undergone an operation.

Government and presidency officials have been tight-lipped about the president’s condition and have not said exactly when he will be back. The opposition has demanded clarity on the president’s health, adding that his absence is having an adverse effect on the workings of government and that the official silence is fuelling speculation and uncertainty.

Should the head of state’s health be a private issue or is it a matter of public interest? Is his prolonged absence from Nigeria a cause for concern? As governor of Katsina state, Yar’Adua spent several months abroad for medical treatment without attracting much public attention, only to return, complete his term and win another one. Can he expect to do the same as leader of the nation?

What if the president leaves office early?

Jacob Zuma, the embattled leader of South Africa’s ruling African National Congress (ANC) launched a big fight for his political life on Aug. 4, asking the  Pietermaritzburg High Court to dismiss a graft case against him that could stop him becoming president next year. If his application is rejected, a full corruption trial could follow later this year and South Africa could head into a protracted period of tension and uncertainty. Read the following insights from leading analysts and have your say on how the legal process could affect South Africa:

Keith Gottschalk, the University of the Western Cape (see full analysis)

“Jacob Zuma’s Zuma’s legal team has already proved, year after year that, if you have a bottomless pocket such as taxpayers, you can protract litigation, U.S.-style for the better part of a decade.”

Rainette Taljaard, Helen Suzman Foundation (see full analysis)

“If the arms deal was the loss of innocence for South African’s ruling party, the Zuma trial will be the collateral damage to constitutional structures with long-term consequences.”

Adenaan Hardien, Cadiz (see full analysis)

“If anything is giving market participants sleepless nights, then it has to be what Reserve Bank Governor Tito Mboweni and his Monetary Policy Committee will decide when they meet next week.”

Only a few months ago, it seemed all doom and gloom for the Kenyan economy as post-election violence threatened to wipe out gains and stymy growth.
 
Tourists were cancelling safari and beach holidays in their droves. Gangs were rampaging around the agricultural heartlands. And few would dare to journey on roads full of boulders, burning tyres and knife-wielding youths.
 
Yet even back then, some analysts argued that East Africa’s strongest economy should be able to withstand the electoral crisis, provided it was brought to a rapid halt.

And stop it did, after President Mwai Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga buried their differences over who won the Dec. 27 vote in a coalition government formed in April.
 
Now foreign and local investors have given a resounding thumbs-up to Kenya’s economy via the largest InItial Public Offering in the region’s history. The offer for mobile operator Safaricom was over-subscribed by 532 percent, shares leapt 50 percent in the first hours of trading and 860,000 people bought shares via the IPO. 
So is Safaricom indicative of Kenya’s recovery, or is there still a long way to go?
 
Have investors got over the shock they received earlier this year?
 
How does Kenya compare to other sub-Saharan African nations — neighbours Uganda and Tanzania; or heavyweights South Africa and Nigeria — as an investment destination? Which are the sectors to put money in?
 
And can the shaky coalition hold?