|
| OPINIONS - OPINION |
|
 Heroism should be earned, not bestowed
By Senator Obert Gutu
18 August 2009
The concept of heroism is as old as humanity itself. Throughout the history of the human race, particular men and women have distinguished themselves in fields of endeavour such as sport, art, politics, business etc.
These distinguished members of the human race include, such luminaries as Joshua Nkomo, Nelson Mandela, Jesse Owens, Martin Luther King Jr, Mbuya Nehanda, Lobengula, Sekuru Kaguvi, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Thomas Mapfumo, Strive Masiyiwa, Warren Buffett and many others.
Thus, heroism cannot and indeed, should not be a straight-jacketed concept that is solely determined by the whims and fantasies of a small political grouping that nurses purely parochial and exclusionist nationalistic proclivities. Heroism should be celebrated as the ultimate human achievement cutting across all political, racial, ethnic and religious divides.
To be more succinct, heroism should be earned and not bestowed like an honorary degree.
Recent events in Zimbabwe have placed into focus the need to de-politicise the conferring of hero status on departed luminaries. By it's very nature, politics is a subjective and emotive subject. It is, therefore, impossible to obtain absolute political unanimity on any subject even within the same political party. Such is the nature of politics that some people refer to it as a dirty game. It is a game with no defined rules and regulations.
Since independence in 1980,the conferment of national and even provincial hero status in Zimbabwe has been the sole preserve of only one political party; ZANU(PF).Over the years, it has been established that one can never be declared a national hero if one is not in good books with ZANU(PF).
This is the reason why pioneering political luminaries such as James Chikerema, Ndabaningi Sithole, Chris Mandizvidza, Patrick Kombayi and Henry Hamadziripi are not interred at the National Heroes' Acre in Harare. According to the narrow, subjective and parochial criteria laid down by ZANU(PF),these distinguished political operators didn’t deserve to be considered as national heroes.
However, one doesn’t have to be a specialist history student to appreciate the fact that Ndabaningi Sithole and James Chikerema were locked up in the colonial prisons alongside Joshua Nkomo and Joseph Musikavanhu, when some of today's latter day heroes were pursuing purely private and personal agendas.
Every decent nation should and indeed, must honour its heroes and heroines. Heroism should never be packaged solely as the ultimate political achievement as dictated by the ethos and standards of one political grouping. Under such a criteria, heroism is inevitably bastardised and you end up having thoroughly discredited and
outrageous characters sneaking into the National and Provincial Heroes' Acres through the back door.
This is an insult to the memory of those, otherwise, exemplary men and women whose remains lie interred at the various national shrines. Furthermore, one doesn’t have to be a politician to be a hero. Zimbabwe’s Jairos Jiri, a great philathropist who pioneered proper care and education for disabled, dumb and deaf people, was and not a politician. Can any right-thinking Zimbabwean deny the fact that Jiri is a national hero and that he deserves a grand reburial at the National Heroes' Acre?
The formation of the inclusive government in February 2009 should necessarily give impetus to the need to completely overhaul the system of declaring national and provincial heroes in Zimbabwe. We should, going forward, begin to establish a new, dynamic, non-partisan and all-embracing concept of coming up with a list of our heroes and heroines. Political considerations should be completely exorcised from the conferment of hero status.
The Movement for Democratic Change led by Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai has come out very clearly on what should be done when it comes to the conferment of hero status in Zimbabwe. The MDC advocates a non-partisan method of conferring hero status on departed deserving Zimbabweans. In this regard, therefore, the MDC envisages the establishment of a National Heroes Board or Commission that will be
mandated with the task of establishing who should be and who shouldn't be declared a national hero when they pass on.
I would further suggest that the new constitution should specifically provide for the establishment of a constitutional body called the National Heroes Commission. This body will then be responsible for all matters and issues relating to the conferment of national, provincial and district hero and heroine status. That way we would have managed to remove this very sensitive aspect of our lives from manipulation by politicians and political parties.
Infact, the proposed National Heroes' Commission should also go further and establish, going back to our pre-colonial history, who should be and who shouldn't have been declared a national hero. Should it become necessary, the remains of some undeserving characters would have to be removed from our sacred national shrine; the National Heroes' Acre in Harare. And those luminaries who were unjustifiably denied national hero status would be reburied at the national shrine if their families
consent with this arrangement.
For a start, why not name one of our major roads, Oliver Mtukudzi highway – in recognition of Mtukudzi’s contribution to the world of music? And why not rename the National University of Science and Technology (NUST), Jairos Jiri University of Science and Technology? We need to demonstrate our pride in the achievements of our great sons and daughters. That is how great nations are moulded.
Our heroes and heroines should be celebrated all the time. Once we successfully de-politicise the conferment of hero status, a lot of things will fall into place. All Zimbabweans will, once again, have a sense of pride and attachment to their heroes and heroines. Brand Zimbabwe can be the global talk sooner rather than later. But then, we should sort out our politics first.
*Senator Obert Gutu is the MDC Senator for Chisipite. He is a Lawyer, member of the MDC National Legal Committee as well as the MDC National Information Committee.
|
|
|
|
| OPINIONS - OPINION |
|
 ZIMBABWE’S DEBT: THE CASE FOR A DEBT AUDIT
By Senator Obert Gutu
03 July 2009
The unpalatable fact is that Zimbabwe is virtually bankrupt. As of December 1, 2008, Zimbabwe's external debt stood at US$5,255bn, with a current account balance of - US$597m.
As of May 31, 2009, Zimbabwe owed the International Monetary Fund (IMF) US$138m and the World Bank US$676m. And as of April 30, 2009, Zimbabwe owed the African Development Bank US$438m.
These statistics are startling and there is, therefore, an urgent need to analyse Zimbabwe's debt crisis and firstly ascertain how such a colossal debt was incurred and then strategise the way forward as to how this debt crisis is to be resolved.
Put alternatively, the legitimacy or lack of it, of Zimbabwe's debt has to be scrutinized if our country is to avoid being perpetually placed under a debt trap. The main is therefore to attempt to provide an objective analysis of Zimbabwe's debt situation and then to propagate the need to have an apolitical, scientific and objective debt audit as a way of charting a new dispensation regarding how the debt crisis has to be handled henceforth.
Odious debts are defined as those debts, incurred by the State, which debts are not for the needs or interest of the State but merely to strengthen the State's despotic power as well as to repress the population that fights against despotism.
The legal doctrine of odious debts is essentially derived from the writings of Alexander Nahum Sack, the world's pre-eminent legal scholar on public debts. Sack authored two major works on the obligations of successor states and these are: “THE EFFECTS OF STATE TRANSFORMATIONS ON THEIR PUBLIC DEBTS AND OTHER FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS'' and “THE SUCCESSION OF THE PUBLIC DEBTS OF THE STATE.''
The doctrine of odious debts is not per se favourable to the interests of emerging economies and also to the developing countries. This is so because the doctrine of odious debts was created to further the interests of international finance by limiting the ability of governments to repudiate debts. Under this doctrine, three conditions must be present before a State can repudiate a debt:
i) the debt must have been incurred without the consent of the people of the State;
ii) the debt cannot have benefited the public in that State and;
iii) the tenderer must have been aware of these two conditions.
The overwhelming majority of the developing world's foreign debts are odious in law. Being part of the developing world, Zimbabwe is thus inevitably caught up in this odious debts fiasco.
Zimbabwe has no capacity to service the afore-mentioned debt. In his inaugural address after being sworn into office on Wednesday, February 11, 2009 , Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai advised the nation that the inclusive government's main priority was to heal the broken economy and supply food to the hungry millions of Zimbabweans.
He stated that: “For too long, our people's hopes for a bright and prosperous future have been betrayed. Instead of hope, their days have been filled with starvation, disease and fear. A culture of entitlement and impunity has brought our nation to the brink of a dark abyss. This must end today.''
Undoubtedly, Tsvangirai was acutely aware of the state of despair, poverty, destitution and hopelessness that prevailed throughout the Zimbabwean society immediately prior to the formation of the inclusive government in February, 2009.
At its formation in February, 2009, the inclusive government inherited approximately US$4,7bn external debts owed to bilateral, multilateral and commercial creditors.
By the time the inclusive government was formed, Zimbabwe was virtually a failed state.
The economic challenges facing the country were such that the de facto government was clearly unable to meet essential state obligations such as the payment of civil servants' salaries as well as the general running of public institutions such as government ministries, public schools and public hospitals.
Zimbabwe's economic collapse is not to be solely located in and restricted to the ineptitude, corruption and misgovernance of the previous government coupled with the chaotic and violent “land reform'' program that began in earnest in February, 2000.
The reasons behind Zimbabwe's economic decline are numerous, complex and historical. Many political economists identify Zimbabwe's unresolved structural weaknesses and systematic inequality built into the apartheid-like system constructed by the Rhodesian settlers as the primary root cause.
A South African-based scholar, Patrick Bond, points to the related crises of Rhodesia's “over-consumption'' of the early 1970s.Analysts agree that at the time of Zimbabwe's independence in 1980,the country's economy was skewed, for example:
i) The entire national economy was designed to support the maintenance and enrichment of a small white minority. At independence in 1980, fewer than 7000 white farmers each owned, on average, more than 100 times the land available to the average African peasant;
ii) Industry, mining and the manufacturing sector were in the hands of multinational corporations and the white settler economy:
iii) The majority of the population had been systematically excluded from the pool of skilled labour as well as the formal economy through a variety of legal and abusive measures.
In present-day Zimbabwe, economic distortions continue. Mining, manufacturing and most industry remain in the hands of external corporations, the white minority and a small clique of black indigenous Zimbabweans.
Zimbabwe is at the crossroads.
The country is caught up in a debt trap,burdened by both short and long-term external debts that inevitably militate against the inclusive government's concerted efforts to jump-start the economy.
Zimbabwe has no choice but to adopt the modern approach to international relations; which approach essentially dictates that developing countries should be given a platform where they can challenge the legitimacy of their debts to creditors with a view to ensuring that their development is not stifled by otherwise odious and/or illegitimate debts which militate against sustainable development.
The inclusive government should come out clearly in the open and join the global voice that seeks the establishment of an international debt arbitration mechanism. The Zimbabwe government should promptly utilize the doctrine of odious debts by establishing a judicial debt arbitration panel, preferably composed of respected and eminent Zimbabwean and international jurists.
This panel would then invite creditors to submit claims, including documentation that the loans were indeed used in the interests of the Zimbabwean people and, not, in the words of the US Deputy Secretary of State Paul Wolforito, “to buy weapons and to build palaces and to build instruments of repression.''
It is pointless to take the alternative route of going to the Paris Club. The Paris Club is composed of die-hard capitalists whose major interest is to remain the world's economic giants at the expense of the developing world.
Put bluntly, the Paris Club will never push the agenda of developing and highly-indebted countries. The Paris Club is an informal grouping of the world's largest creditor nations. This club uses Western taxpayer dollars to rescue misplaced loans by public lenders.
Zimbabwe should never approach the Paris Club; at least before establishing the legitimacy or otherwise of its colossal external debt. Recent news reports are to the effect that France is mulling the possibility of cancelling Zimbabwe's debt to that country which is in the region of €400 million. This is a very encouraging starting point.
The World Bank's article of agreement imposes a fiduciary duty on the bank to ensure that the proceeds of any loan are used only for the purposes for which the loan is granted. If the World Bank breaches this fiduciary duty it should be held liable and the debtor nation must be entitled to challenge the odious debt at international law.
In his paper: “CRIMINAL DEBT IN THE INDONESIA CONTEXT'', Northwestern University Professor Jeffrey Winters provides shocking insight into the World Bank's weak supervisory practices.
Winters presents overwhelming evidence that the World Bank breached its fiduciary duty to Indonesia by granting loans which, it knew, would be used for corrupt purposes. As a result, Indonesian legislators have since asked the International Monetary Fund (IMF), to write off the country's foreign debts, including those to other donors recommended by the IMF.
The Indonesian government had a foreign debt of around US$67bn as of July 13, 2001. The breach of its fiduciary duty by the World Bank is ordinarily a legal basis to challenge the legitimacy of the debts.
The hurdle to be encountered by the inclusive government in Zimbabwe is to prove that the lending institutions knew or ought to have known that the funds would not be used in the interest of the people but solely for the benefit of the ruling regime's members in their personal capacities.
*Senator Obert Gutu is the MDC Senator for Chisipite. He is a Lawyer, member of the MDC National Legal Committee as well as the MDC National Information Committee.
|
|
|
|
| OPINIONS - OPINION |
|
 Zimbabwe inclusive government is the only game in town!
23 June 2009
By Senator Obert Gutu
That Zimbabwe is not yet fully democratised is beyond debate.The road to a fully democratic Republic of Zimbabwe has been and still remains long and arduous.It will be total folly for anyone to think that we have completed the democratisation agenda in Zimbabwe.
If anything,Zimbabwe is at the crossroads.Our destiny is in our own hands; to make or break our motherland.The struggle to liberate Zimbabwe from racist colonial bondage was not for the faint-hearted.In similar measure,the struggle to democratise Zimbabwe is anything but a stroll in the park.
It is a process and not an event. Thus, for anyone to imagine that we can just wake up one morning and find Zimbabwe fully democratised is an exercise in futility. In simple parlance, it is called day-dreaming. From around 1890 when a group of fortune-hunters masquerading as the Pioneer Column invaded Zimbabwe, this country has had the misfortune of being governed by very repressive and intolerant regimes.
In this context, therefore, Wednesday February 11,2009 marked a defining and historic moment in the political history of Zimbabwe. This is so because on that day, the present inclusive government was formed. From that day onwards, Zimbabwe will never be the same again. In my humble opinion, the formation of the inclusive government inevitably marked the beginning of the end of totalitarianism in our country.
It is simply unthinkable to imagine that Zimbabweans will ever allow any single person to wield so much executive State power as was the case prior to the formation of the inclusive givernment. Put alternatively, I cannot envisage a situation where Zimbabweans will ever accept to be governed in a despotic, imperial and authoritarian manner by anyone for that matter.
The inclusive government, if recent scientific surveys are anything to go by, has the support of about 80% of the people of Zimbabwe. This simply means that the majority of the people, both living in Zimbabwe and in the Diaspora, support the concept of the inclusive government. This support is borne out of the realisation that there was no other viable alternative to the inclusive government at this juncture in the political history of our country.
I am not doing a public relations brief for the inclusive government. I am merely stating a fact. And in most cases, facts are pretty stubborn. Every right-thinking person knows that the MDC, under the leadership of Morgan Richard Tsvangirai, won the harmonised elections on March 29, 2008.
Morgan Tsvangirai won the Presidential election and this is the main reason why it took the thoroughly discredited Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) five weeks to formally announce the results of the Presidential election. This inordinate delay was unprecedented in the history of elections on the whole of the African continent. It was a first and indeed, it deserves to be recorded in the Guiness Book of world records!
It is not my intention to whip up political emotions. I am simply relating the cold,hard fact concerning the pathetic and embarassing performance of the ZEC. Surely,if the ZANU(PF) candidate had won the Presidential election on March 29, 2008, the ZEC would have have proceeded at supersonic speed to announce the results.
The biased, partisan and incompetent conduct of the ZEC in the manner in which they handled the Presidential election of March 29, 2008 clearly shows that Zimbabwe is not yet a fully democratic nation. A democratic country does not wait for five weeks to know the results of an election where less than three (3) million voters have cast their vote. A country in which elections are run by a partisan and militarised organ is not a democratic country.
Basic democratic tenets dictate that the winner of a free and fair Presidential election should proceed to form the next government. That should have been the case in Zimbabwe but we all know what happened between March and June 2008.
Zimbabwe ended up having an inclusive government in February 2009 because democracy had failed to be respected. The inclusive government is not what the voters voted for on March 29, 2008; the last credible election held in Zimbabwe. My support for the inclusive government is not a manifestation of my dislike for true democratic tenets.
My support for this unique form of government is simply informed by the fact that post June, 2008, this is the only viable type of government that can take Zimbabwe further on the democratisation route. Yes; the inclusive government is a very painful compromise on the part of Morgan Tsvangirai who clearly won the elections on March 29, 2009. But then we have to look at the bigger
picture.
We were forced to share power with ZANU (PF) not because that is what the voters decided on March 29, 2009. We were compelled to enter into a marriage of convenience with ZANU (PF) because that was the only peaceful alternative that the MDC had after the electoral losers refused to hand over power after losing a free and fair election. The decision to get into the inclusive government was thus necessitated by the need to save Zimbabwe from total collapse. It was a statesman- like decision that was taken by Morgan Tsvangirai and the leadership of the MDC.
Cognisance should always be taken of the fact that the inclusive government is and indeed, should be a transitional arrangement. Those of us who dream that the inclusive government should last forever are obviously thinking selfishly. They will, no doubt, be disappointed; sooner rather than later. The people of Zimbabwe are keen to choose their leaders through democratic, free and fair elections.
They want elections and not boardroom manouvres to determine who should govern them. Infact, the people detest the idea of having electoral losers governing them. Hence, the paramount need to move with speed to ensure that a new people-driven constitution is crafted and put to the people via a referendum.
We cannot afford to wait a day longer. Already, it is apparent that the inclusive government is facing tremendous challenges in trying to convince a sceptical world that this unique experiment in governance can work. The people should promptly be given another free and fair opportunity to decide who should govern them.
Prime Minister Tsvangirai's recent visit abroad has shown the level of scepticism that is out there concerning the inclusive government. As long as there is no evidence of genuine power-sharing the people will be very difficult to convince. When the democratisation agenda is being sabotaged at every turn the people get very worried. When the rule of law continues to be bastardised the people continue to be traumatised.
When clearly innocent people such as Toendepi Shonhe and Alec Muchadehama are arrested and detained on trumped up charges we all get very concerned. When thoroughly discredited politicians such as Jonathan Moyo start launching scathing attacks on the person and office of the Prime Minister it becomes crystal clear that the beast of political thuggery and totalitarianism has not yet been tamed.
Indeed, we should tread carefully. Thedemocratisation route in Zimbabwe is full of booby traps. There are vultures out there - men and women without a conscience; unprincipled people who are prepared to defend the indefensible. Pathetic and greedy monsters who will do anything for money.
We should remain vigilant as a people. We should learn to distinguish between genuine patriots who love Zimbabwe and political prostitutes and turn-coats who are invariably driven by selfish motives in whatever they do in their lives. These characters will always change their colours like a chameleon. Today, they will champion the enactment of draconian laws such as the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (AIPPA).
Tomorrow, they will pretend to be democrats and hoodwink the MDC into failing to field a candidate in Tsholotsho North constituency. Comrades, we allowed a lethal snake to invade our household. We should never be this tactless in future elections. A snake is a snake. It always remains lethal.
The inclusive government deserves our support because it takes us further on our democratisation agenda. It is a major step forward instead of backwards. Yes; the inclusive government is littered with imperfections. But then that is the price that Zimbabwe has to pay for failing to respect the results of the Presidential election that was held on March 29, 2008.The inclusive government is certainly not a full loaf. But then, half a loaf is better than nothing.
*Senator Obert Gutu is the MDC Senator for Chisipite. He is a Lawyer, member of the MDC National Legal Committee as well as the MDC National Information Committee.
|
|
|
|
| OPINIONS - OPINION |
|
 Zimbabwe: Is the tide turning against Mugabe
By Eddie Cross
05 June 2009
In an estuary the turn of the tide happens every day - when it happens it is difficult to see at first but soon the water starts to run, slowly at first and then like a flood, sweeping all in front of it and even tempering the incoming waves. Are we seeing the first signs in Zimbabwe?
I think Zanu PF now knows that they made some poor choices when they manipulated the final outcome of the GPA and tried to protect their position in the country. MDC ended up with all the Ministries that are concerned with the delivery of the basic needs of ordinary people, health, education, water, sanitation, roads and basic welfare and food requirements.
Zanu concentrated on what they saw as controlling the political process – media and information, the security services, the Reserve Bank, the Justice system, foreign affairs and land.
Many of those choices now look like poison chalices. They know now that they will be forced to allow reform of the media - that is just a matter of time and already the media is changing. Their control of the security services without the money to satisfy their need for a liveable wage and decent living and working conditions as well as new toys to play with, is like being tossed a hot coin.
This past week the security chiefs gathered to
consider what to do with their increasingly restive forces.
The Reserve Bank Governor Gedion Gono might still be in his office on the top of that glass and concrete tower, but underneath him are empty vaults and few staff. What staff he still has wonder how they are going to be paid at the month end.
It is rumoured that Gono offered to retire - in return for US$10 million. Cheap at any price in my view but he was given no choice by the State President - 'you stay where you are!'
MDC attacks on the post were met with a barrage of statements by all sorts of people saying that if
necessary, they would 'fight' to defend that empty building.
Why they are defending the position of Gono is no mystery, he knows all the secrets, who took what and when and where the stuff is held. He has all the bank account numbers and if he was let loose on the streets he would be dangerous to all of the beneficiaries.
Even the control of Foreign Affairs is proving an embarrassment. While Mr. Mugabe has no choice as to where he can or cannot go and who will receive him, the Prime Minister takes off on Saturday and his itinerary looks like a trip through the pages of who is who! Starting with Obama and Merkel, going on to Brown and then the leadership the Nordic States, the Netherlands and France. The Foreign Minister - well it was not even clear that he was going to get a visa!.
Diplomats, almost universally, give little significance to the Foreign Minister, they simply circumvent him and deal direct with the people they regard as being democrats.
Since Zanu PF destroyed the economy, tax receipts have fallen to less than half of what we need to run the country. The rest has to come from the international community - and that group is dominated by the very countries that are demanding change.
So when they release resources they make pretty sure they are not being co-opted by the remaining elements of the old regime. They spend their money in those areas where the MDC happens to be in charge - health services, education, services and essential food supplies.
This means that in many instances the MDC is delivering and the people know it. The transformation of the economy is clearly the result of MDC efforts - after all we have now ring-fenced and neutralised Gono who was the sole prop of the previous regime.
It's not hard to see the continued failures of Zanu PF - they control agriculture and land policy - and both are in a complete shambles. They declared their intention to restore production of basic foods and other agricultural products only to lose what was left of the winter cereals industry.
Little wheat and barley has been planted. Now they might lose what is left of the tobacco industry and if that happens then the vast infrastructure that once supported the third largest exporter of tobacco in the world will simple disappear along with tens of thousands of jobs.
Everyone will know who was responsible for that.
The reality is that the centre of their whole political programme over the past decade is disintegrating. They said they were taking the land to rectify an historical wrong and to restore the rights of the indigenous population, only to compound the injustice and to disable two thirds of the total population.
Zanu tried to keep us out of any transitional administration - they have failed. They have done everything that they can to try to evict us and put us back on the street - they have failed. They are trying to show that we do not have any real power in this new administration only to discover that their own weakness is thereby exposed for all to see.
They are being gradually forced to actually live up to the deal they were forced to accept and sign in September last year, as that process unfolds, enforced by the region and South Africa, so they will appreciate, like the hard men in South Africa after 1990, that this tide is not reversible and leads in only one direction.
*Eddie Cross is MP for Bulawayo South and the MDC's Policy Coordinator. This article first appeared on his website www.eddiecross.africanherd.com
|
|
|
|
| OPINIONS - OPINION |
|
 When are we going to get over skin colour?
By Andrew Manis
02 February 2009
For much of the last forty years, ever since America "fixed" its race problem in the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, we white people have been impatient with African Americans who continued to blame race for their difficulties. Often we have heard whites ask: "When are African Americans finally going to get over it?"
Now I want to ask: "When are we White Americans going to get over our ridiculous obsession with skin colour?"
Recent reports that "Election Spurs Hundreds' of Race Threats, Crimes" should frighten and infuriate every one of us. Having grown up in "Bombingham," Alabama in the 1960s, I remember overhearing an avalanche of comments about what many white classmates and their parents wanted to do to John and Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King. Eventually, as you may recall, in all three cases, someone decided to do more than "talk the talk."
Since our recent presidential election, to our eternal shame we are once again hearing the same reprehensible talk I remember from my boyhood.
We white people have controlled political life in the disunited colonies and United States for some 400 years on this continent. Conservative whites have been in power 28 of the last 40 years. Even during the eight Clinton years, conservatives in Congress blocked most of his agenda and pulled him to the right.
Yet never in that period did I read any headlines suggesting that anyone was calling for the assassinations of presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan, or either of the Bushes. Criticize them, yes. Call for their impeachment, perhaps.
But there were no bounties on their heads. And even when someone did try to kill Ronald Reagan, the perpetrator was non-political mental case who wanted merely to impress Jody Foster.
But elect a liberal who happens to be Black and we're back in the sixties again. At this point in our history, we should be proud that we've proven what conservatives are always saying -that in America anything is possible, EVEN electing a black man as president. But instead we now hear that schoolchildren from Maine to California are talking about wanting to "assassinate Obama."
Fighting the urge to throw up, I can only ask: "How long?" How long before we white people realize we can't make our nation, much less the whole world, look like us? How long until we white people can -once and for all- get over this hell-conceived preoccupation with skin colour?
How long until we white people get over the demonic conviction that white skin makes us superior? How long before we white people get over our bitter resentments about being demoted to the status of equality with non-whites?
How long before we get over our expectations that we should be at the head of the line merely because of our white skin? How long until we white people end our silence and call out our peers when they share the latest racist jokes in the privacy of our white-only conversations?
I believe in free speech, but how long until we white people start making racist loud mouths as socially uncomfortable as we do flag burners? How long until we white people will stop insisting that blacks exercise personal responsibility, build strong families, educate themselves enough to edit the Harvard Law Review, and work hard enough to become President of the United States, only to threaten to assassinate them when they do?
How long before we starting "living out the true meaning" of our creeds, both civil and religious, that all men and women are created equal and that "red and yellow, black and white" all are precious in God's sight?
Until this past November 4, I didn't believe this country would ever elect an African American to the presidency. I still don't believe I'll live long enough to see us white people get over our racism problem. But here's my three-point plan:
First, everyday that Barack Obama lives in the White House that Black Slaves Built I'm going to pray that God (and the Secret Service) will protect him and his family from us white people.
Second, I'm going to report to the FBI any white person I overhear saying, in seriousness or in jest, anything of a threatening nature about President Obama.
Third, I'm going to pray to live long enough to see America surprise the world once again, when white people can "in spirit and in truth" sing of our damnable colour prejudice, "We have overcome."
*Andrew Manis is the author of Macon Black and White and serves on the steering committee of Macon's Center for Racial understanding.
|
|
|
|
| OPINIONS - OPINION |
|
 Diplomacy can triumph in Zimbabwe
By Rashweat Mukundu
29 January 2009
On 28 January South Africa's e-TV showed pictures of emaciated Zimbabwean prisoners and rural families, many sick and dying from lack of food and medication. The pictures and accompanying news story were a stark reminder of the dire situation in Zimbabwe just as Southern African Development Corporation (SADC) leaders were completing their meeting on finding a lasting solution to the crisis in Zimbabwe.
The e-TV story is particularly interesting as it shows in clearer terms the issues in Zimbabwe; that the crisis is about livelihoods and people. While a lot has been written about how the crisis is man made, and Mugabe's intransigence and his total disregard of any civilised political processes, the issue in my view remains that the people of Zimbabwe have reached the end of the tether and cannot hang on any longer.
While the SADC summit was concluded in South Africa, reports were already emerging on how the MDC has not consented to the communiqué and how the breakthrough, is after all a false one. This message of doom was conveyed mostly by the foreign media with newspapers such as the Telegraph in the UK carrying opinions urging the MDC not to join Mugabe in a unity government.
This kind of news has a chilling effect on the majority of Zimbabweans, local or in the diaspora, for it conveys only one message; that is more suffering and an increasingly uncertain and dark and darker future. This brings back the question of what these talks are really about.
Despite my misgivings about the leadership of South Africa in this process, I agree with President Kgalema Motlanthe that we cannot afford to go on talking and talking and that these talks should focus on simply saving the lives of the people of Zimbabwe first and everything else later.
No one is fooled by the fact that the MDC received a raw deal from Mugabe and SADC. The questions that remains to be answered is what options the MDC has, what can the party do to overcome the support that SADC openly shows for Mugabe?
My view is that the MDC right now has no choice but to join the unity government with its headlights on full beam. The MDC now needs to go above ZANU-PF, both morally and in political strategy and define itself as a party of the future. I argue that the MDC needs to join the government simply to help save lives and restore some sort of dignity and normalcy to the lives of Zimbabweans.
The MDC needs to go into the unity government to salvage the little of what is left of Zimbabwe, as well as work on a new constitution that reverses the damage of the past eight years as well set a future course guaranteeing our rights as well independent institutions for elections and other pressing issues.
This agenda does not need the MDC to have Ambassadorial posts among other issues. The MDC needs to look at its role in the unity government as transitional and not permanent. There is no way this process, flawed as it is, can be seen as the ultimate solution to the crisis in Zimbabwe. The transition in Zimbabwe, the MDC should note, will be slow and painful but the journey has to be taken nevertheless.
For Christians the death of Christ on the cross was a painful journey that had to be taken. It was certainly not the end of the process but simply part of it and the final victory is yet to come. The MDC needs to make full and effective utilisation of the social service and economic ministries it holds to stabilise Zimbabwe, gain experience in running a government and prepare for the future. Joining the unity government, however painful, gives the opposition a chance to carry out its political programmes in peace.
One thing is clear about Robert Mugabe, not only is he 84 years old and therefore half way into being an ancestor and spirit medium for his family and party, he also shouldn't be seen as part of the future of Zimbabwe. He unfortunately bestrides the door of transition and a way has to be found to sidestep him and move forward.
The success of the MDC in the unity government is dependent on what the party will do with that little power and an acknowledgment that the unity governments is part of, and not the transition. The MDC still needs a robust political programme that guarantees its continued linkages with its grassroots support both urban and rural.
A key stumbling block that the MDC needs to overcome is the pessimism that comes from western capitals. This pessimism is rooted in the understandable loathing of Mugabe. The MDC is however better counselled by history, that sometimes what maters in the life of any given state are its interests.
Mugabe did not mutate into a dictator overnight. He was one in 1980 and did commit heinous acts against the Ndebele community in the 1980s. Then there was no talk of Mugabe quitting. The likes of Tiny Rowland even threatened to fire editors of his Observer newspaper in London who reported the atrocities in Matabeleland.
Any state is better protected by its people, healthy and without disease and hunger. Mugabe has weakened Zimbabwe and our abilities to move forward as a people. The MDC cannot afford to maintain this path by going for broke.
The call by some media organisations that the MDC should not join the unity government negates the suffering that the people of Zimbabwe are going through. Another aspect that the MDC needs to remove from its psyche is that the unity agreement as process will not succeed without monetary support from the west. That in my view is neither true nor a sustainable proposition noting how the west is now burdened with its own economic challenges.
The future of Zimbabwe lies not in generous aid but normalising the economy, resuscitating agriculture, education health, and more importantly; taming corruption. History and present international crises must counsel the MDC that the world is far less concerned about Zimbabwe in comparison, say to Gaza, in the middle east. The geo-political significance of Zimbabwe is such that we can all die and the world moves on as if nothing happened.
Lest we forget, one million people died in Rwanda and the world moved on. Less that two thousand died in Gaza and the world almost came to standstill from the UN, Washington, London, Johannesburg, Lusaka to Paris. Even African governments, most of whom have been quite about Zimbabwe, had something to say about the deaths of the Palestinians.
Over 3000 have died in Zimbabwe and not many, except Raila Odinga and Botswana, said anything. That is the painful reality of our own world. It is good to then evaluate how far we can rely on outside to help to get us out of the malaise that ZANU-PF has thrown us in. Diplomacy then is best placed to serve us and move us forward. The future belongs to us not Mugabe.
*The above article was posted by Southern Africa Media and Social Review
|
|
|
|
| OPINIONS - OPINION |
|
 Ghana underlines Africa’s democratic development
By Alhaji Tanko
05 January 2009
GHANA, the West African country shines once more as the Star of Africa as it installs its next democratically elected government on 7th January 2009.
The conduct of the presidential and parliamentary elections that took place on December 7th and 28th 2008 is perhaps the finest shining example in Africa’s quest for democracy.
It is the fifth “peaceful and fair” election that has been conducted in the West African country since the end of the military rule in 1992.
The UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon, has praised Ghana for the orderly outcome of the elections. He said it was a democratic achievement and an example to other countries inside and outside Africa.
Significantly, Ghana has put behind it the bloody military interventions which started with the overthrow of the first President Kwame Nkrumah and the subsequent executions of a number of military leaders.
Formerly known as the Gold Coast, the former British Colony was the first African nation to gain independence in 1957 and contributed immensely to the liberation struggles across Africa. As Nkrumah was fond of saying the “Ghana is not independent until the whole of Africa gains self-rule.” His vision of establishing a United States of Africa, is an idea still regarded today by many African political theorists as the ultimate destiny of Africa however remote this may appear.
Altogether nine political parties took part in the elections, including the Convention Peoples Party, New Vision Party, Democratic Freedom Party, Democratic People’s Party Reformed Patriotic Party, Ghana National Party and People’s National convention.
However, opinion polls indicated from the start that only the Ghanaian opposition party, National Democratic Party (NDC) had any realistic chance of wrestling power from the ruling National Patriotic Party (NPP). The NDC had one advantage; it was already holding a narrow majority in the Parliament.
But it is the conduct of the Ghana elections which should be commended and the way the former ruling party has accepted defeat graciously without resorting to strong arm tactics. The recent blood bath in Kenya, Togo, Cote D’Ivoire and Algerian elections, and the bloody clashes in Zimbabwean election which has culminated in the sufferings of the people of that once beautiful country is a case in point.
Closer to Ghana, the continuous court battles in Nigeria over contested election results also serve as a reminder of the maturity of Ghana as a democratic state. Many political observers say Ghana’s election will help salvage the tarnished image of African democracy given the annulment of the election results and recent military takeover in Guinea and Mauritania. I couldn’t agree more with that assessment.
Nigeria’s President, Alhaji Umaru Y’ Ardua in his congratulatory message to Ghana’s President-elect, said that his election has once again allayed insinuations on Africa’ competence to conduct a hitch-free democratic election adding that “Ghana has made the whole African continent proud”.
Ghanaians are showing a lot of political maturity and have now acquired a distinctive taste of wisely using their voting power to punish their politicians who take them for granted. This is second time they have replaced a ruling party with an opposition after allowing enough time for the ruling party to fulfil their promises to them or implement pledges.
The President-elect Atta Mills of the NDC who pooled just over 50% of the votes against Nana Akuffo Addo of the ruling NPP party’s 49.77 will be sworn in on Wednesday 7th January 2009 for a term of 4 years. Around 22 million Ghanaians will be watching the inauguration with the hope that Atta Mills will be the faithful servant to the country’s agenda of economic progress and political accountability.
Credit should also go to the outgoing president, John Agyekum Kuffour for making a statement accepting his party’s defeat and urging Ghanaians to go forward as one nation.
The fate of the ruling NPP was cast during the party’s primaries last year when a colossal 19 ministers and some top officials of the party resigned their posts to contest for presidential nomination of the party in the just ended election. This exposed the party to accusations of greed and disinterest in state of affairs.
Under the NPP government of Mr. Kuffour, Ghanaians endured a lot of hardships, particularly the increase in the price of oil. To its lack of credit, the government went back on its promises not to increase oil prices, by doing so by a significant margin.
Furthermore, Ghanaians were peeved when most of the key appointment in government went to the President’s family and friends. Even as the election loomed, the NPP was being accused of corruption. And when the President’s son bought a US$10 million hotel and other members of his family and minister began displaying an abundance of wealth that had not been associated with them before, the die was cast. Taxes were increased beyond a level that made most Ghanaians grumble as they saw their disposable incomes shrink and poverty levels increase, along with the crime rate.
Moreover, the outgoing government undertook large expenditures in self-glorifying projects, such as the building of presidential palace (office), Presidential residence and a purchase of new presidential jet. All this was happening after Ghana had placed its name under the Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) with the World Bank in order to receive relief aid!
The biggest advantage that the new President Mills and his NDC party will enjoy is that they come into office with Ghana’s economic prospects looking very bright due to the huge offshore oil and gas finds in the west of the country.
Although the benefits of this new found wealth will not be felt until 2011 when the oil comes on stream, the potential for the government to use this revenue in tangible ways which benefit all parts of the country, gives it an immense opportunity to display a shrewd management of the economy.
Professor Atta Mills has already announced his provisional cabinet members to marshal the transition from the Kuffuor Administration to his Government.
Predictably, the President-elect has come under criticism from some quarters for including personalities from the former President Rawlings cabinet!
Some are already claiming that the NDC is not up to the task but the President-elect will have to prioritise and tackle wide spread poverty, ineffective healthcare scheme (health insurance) introduced by the outgoing government, free education, food production energy and water supply, housing, manufacturing and free zones to boost domestic, cocoa production, export, mass and haulage transport (railways) and mining.
The president will have some serious explaining to do to persuade the electorates and his own supporters that he has what it takes to rule and is not going to be under the shadow and influence of charismatic former President Flt (Dr) Jerry John Rawlings, the founder of the NDC Party and his powerful wife- Nana Agyeman Konadu Rawlings.
*Alhajo Tanko is a public relations, media and management consultant. He is also the President of London Colleges of Business Management and Information Technology in Camberwell, South London.
|
|
|
|
| OPINIONS - OPINION |
|
 Open letter to SADC and African Union
By Reginald Thabani Gola
04 January 2009
Your Excellencies, concern for Zimbabwe’s politically humiliated and economically devastated people compels me to take this unusual step of addressing myself to you.
The dehumanising sight of desperately hungry Zimbabweans as they survive, rather than live, under a terrorist governance led by Robert Mugabe begs the question; what is the relevance of SADC and the AU to ordinary Africans who have a right to expect these two bodies to act strongly against leaders who defy the democratic choices made by the voting public?
Mugabe has not only trivialized the electoral process which picked Morgan Tsvangirai as the people’s choice in the March 2008 elections, he has arbitrarily subjected his political opponents to the laws of the jungle, and violently suppressed the democratic will of Zimbabweans.
Yet all we hear from SADC and the African Union is a perplexing endorsement of the continuation of Mugabe’s rule under a so-called government of national unity. Mugabe has the temerity to invite MDC to be part of a shared-power government, and to claim the lion’s share of the government ministries when he and his party actually lost the 2008 elections!
The most trying question, your Excellencies, is whether the retrogression obtaining in Zimbabwe as it plummets daily under the leadership of an unelected leader, Mugabe, and his illegitimately ruling ZANU PF, ever touches the consciences of SADC and AU who have spent decades passing resolutions about their readiness to abide by democratic principles and the rule of law across the African continent.
The world searches for logic as to why Zimbabwe has so much sunk into total anarchy and Mugabe’s ZANU PF “war lordism”:
My question to South Africa’s president Kgalema Motlanthe who is also the president of SADC and to Tanzania’s president, Jakaya Kikwete currently president of AU is: would you ever tell Mugabe to his face that he and his ZANU PF thugs masquerading as ministers of government should respect the out-comes of the electoral process in Zimbabwe?
Mugabe literally staged a coup against the MDC prior to his belated announcement of the election results two months after the elections in March 2008. SADC and the AU stood aside and offered no condemnation of his actions.
Yet the recent military coup in Guinea attracted instant SADC and African Union condemnation. Similarly, atrocities in Sierra Leone, Liberia, Somalia, Rwanda and Uganda were recognized as genocide and lots of positive humanitarian noises were made against the offenders. In Zimbabwe thousands of people have been killed, tortured and maimed and the most SADC and the AU have come close to condemnation is to refer to the situation as a “crisis”, at times “no crisis.”
Zambia’s late president Levy Mwanawasa, was regarded as a maverick when he referred to Zimbabwe as a “a sinking titanic” requiring urgent attention. His colleagues within the SADC and the African Union remained mum over events in Zimbabwe.
The world sees “zero” logic your excellencies in your tolerance of Robert Mugabe’s particularly given the ever growing list of missing opposition and human rights activists, the government’s defiance of court orders to either search and find, try, or release the victims of tyranny.
Your Excellencies, the world finds “zero” logic furthermore, in the fact that your institutions have found it acceptable that on losing the March 29 2008 elections Mugabe retains the right to imprison those who dare oppose him, or to torture them and dump them in shallow graves; force democracy into hiding.
Ambiguity prevails in excess within your stables, your excellencies. At best you have preferred a government of national unity, or a transitional authority headed by the offending rejected tyrant in place of a fresh well constituted and legitimate internationally supervised presidential run-off, to pave way for a government of national unity.
Your Excellencies, in Zimbabwe exists a well constituted and legitimate political party, the Movement for Democratic Change - Tsvangirai {MDC-T} that came out top at the March 29 2008 election. There is “zero” logic, your excellencies, in the Mugabe shameless rhetoric which seems to be selling well within your respective organizations that various sectors of the world have initiated and continue to support what he {Mugabe} calls “illegal regime change” in Zimbabwe for the simple reason that the respective country has no legitimate regime at the moment.
It is the people of Zimbabwe who have demanded change, who have demanded Mugabe’s democratic departure through the ballot box.
Your Excellencies, kindly be informed that there exists no other force against Mugabe beyond the respective citizenry electoral ballots since the year 2000.
Your Excellencies, the world finds absolutely no logic in your advocacy for Mugabe to continue to preside over Zimbabwe’s key ministries. Most sensitive, the ministry of Home Affairs which, for the past twenty eight years of Mugabe’s brutal rule, has been in charge of atrocities perpetrated against the opposition and human rights activism.
Mugabe’s twenty eight year old track-record on all the key disputed ministries of Defence, Finance, Home Affairs, Information and Publicity, Lands, Agriculture and Resettlement, Local Government and that of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs ranges from very corrupt, dismal, brutal, to, at best, controversial.
Zimbabweans would be very pleased if your respective organizations could acquaint them with your cause of grief over the democratic rejection of Mugabe and show cause as to why Mugabe should continue to wield dismal charge of these “terror ministries” against the popular citizenry will. As of now, your Excellencies, the people of Zimbabwe and the world beyond would be very keen to get a “re-brief” of your respective organizations mandates {charters} as there seems to exist an acute contradiction between your “illustrious paper mandates {charters}” and the selective dismal hands-on operations.
The late Zambian president, Levy Mwanawasa, Botswana’s president Seretse Khama Ian Khama, Liberia’s Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, Nigeria, Tanzania, Kenya’s Raila Odinga, Desmond Tutu, Nelson Mandela and Jacob Zuma, your Excellencies, are not being delinquent in their condemnation of Mugabe’s primitive rule.
In conclusion, your Excellencies, may I pray you to give this matter your most urgent attention. Stop the killer machine and transform Zimbabwe into a “home-sweet-home” once again for peace loving Zimbabweans.
*Reginald Thabani Gola is a Zimbabwean political analyst, human rights activist and independent journalist. E-mail:regtgola@yahoo.com Cells. 00267 75040090, 00267 74688127
|
|
|
|
| OPINIONS - OPINION |
|
 Zimbabwe on the edge of the precipice
By Mary Ndlovu
December 19, 2008
Soldiers go on the rampage against civilians, nurses steal medicines to sell to patients, teachers abandon their schools, the government spends money to buy high court judges plasma screen televisions, while the nation starves and dies of cholera.
Civil servants obtain their 'salaries' by charging for 'services' provided, police arrest suspects only to get the bribe required before releasing them. Groups of unidentified men, undoubtedly state agents, kidnap and abduct people from their homes and offices. And party politicians - rejected by the electorate - masquerade as 'ministers' issuing threats, denials and insults even as the waves of disaster lap around their feet.
Zimbabwe has joined the league of societies whose collapse demonstrates how a venal, self-interested leadership can destroy an entire nation; political structures, economic structures, families and many individuals all crooked, twisted, debilitated and dying as expressions of any positive human endeavour. And we the people have allowed our most precious institutions to be destroyed and our nation to disintegrate.
On the one side we have a kleptocratic elite sucking the oozing lifeblood out of the economy they have wounded, clinging to the corpse like leeches, and refusing to be dislodged until no sign of life remains. On the other we have a stunned citizenry, incapable of making any strategic response, and looking for individual salvation when only a collective answer will bring the change they so desire.
The contest can't even be elevated to a struggle between good and evil - evil is everywhere, but where is the good? To be sure, any form of good is difficult to recognise in the timid opposition, which has only managed, correctly or incorrectly, to present an image of self-interested ditherers.
Meanwhile, the population flounders, leaderless and adrift in a life-and-death crisis.
A few years ago, when our current crisis was just developing, commentators identified a worst-case scenario: the country's total breakdown into anarchy or warlordism, probably to be avoided, but ultimately possible. Today, this scenario is about to become a reality and a senior United Nations official has already declared Zimbabwe a failed state.
We have no functioning government, little revenue, a shadow of a civil service, play money which surfaces on the black market before it reaches the commercial banks, sewage in the streets, in houses, even in clinics, and increasing numbers of
'disappeared'.
Responsibility lies with ZANU-PF for governing solely in their own interests, using every crude tactic to remain in power when they have been rejected by the people at the polls. But the victims of tyranny have choices in how they respond. The opposition, while gaining overwhelming support, has failed to translate this backing into effective power of any kind.
Civil society is divided, careerist, and as ineffective as the opposition in producing positive results from unified action. Numerous creative and competent individuals prefer to work from outside the country, distancing themselves from the people for the sake of their families and their careers. Individual choices must be respected, but there is no doubt that collectively we have failed.
A failed state, a failed opposition, a failed nation, and now possibly a failed region.
Today, Zimbabweans look at each other and shake their heads. How could we have allowed this to happen? But even more critically, what can we do about it?
At first, the opposition MDC's efforts seemed to be well placed: take the electoral route to challenge the dictator, remain non-violent, stay on the side of morality, and stay the course. When all this proved inadequate to dislodge a tyranny, instead of taking the more difficult route of mass mobilisation, they appealed to other regional governments to resolve the problem.
This turned out to be a fatal blunder, at least for the Zimbabwean masses. The response from African governments was not sympathy but prevarication, stony hearts and cowardly policies. And while the MDC leadership has spent their time in negotiations in South Africa or jetting around Africa and the Western world to press their cause, they have neglected their followers at home, leaving them to face the deepening crises of hunger and disease without any hope or any direction.
In spite of their diplomatic offensive, the MDC has failed to convince African governments of what seems patently obvious, that there is not much point of an election if the loser gets to stay in power and share it - unevenly at that - with the winner.
This is clearly neither democratic nor fair.
But it was the best that African governments could offer. Hence we arrived at the power-sharing talks of the past five months, which have squeezed out a GPA (global political agreement) which purports to create an 'inclusive' government under a new interim constitution.
But this African government policy has also failed because it is clear that ZANU-PF has no intention of genuine power sharing, and the opposition refuses to be led into what they perceive as a trap.
Hence we carry on at frenetic speed towards the precipice, as the negotiators dilly dally on the sidelines, becoming increasingly irrelevant to the problems of daily life.
While politicians may believe they are standing on principle, people have lost faith in almost all of them. What people want is a government that functions to bring piped clean water, food, medical care, schools with teachers, banks with money that can actually buy things, and the overall decent standard of living that these represent.
They want a government that serves the people instead of exploiting, oppressing and terrorising them.
There are now only two possibilities: either we fall over the precipice and crash, or someone snatches our sinking craft just before it smashes onto the rocks below. That crash would be the last final spasm bringing death to Zimbabwe as we have known it. It would herald the disintegration of all semblance of order, the descent into a free-for-all grab for food, water, medicines, and homes - any and all resources - by those who take the law into their own hands. That would be the classic finale which has come to be synonymous with Somalia - warlords and armed might in place of government and law.
And no one should carry any illusion that it could be reversed without years of Herculean effort.
The other possibility is a rescue. Who would rescue us and how could it be done? Could the power-sharing agreement still be the answer? The MDC now has little choice but to participate on whatever terms they can squeeze out and attempt to make something of it. Certainly this carries a risk of becoming irrelevant, trapped in a situation they do not control. But they appear to have no other strategy to save Zimbabwe from total destruction, so they must cooperate with the regional presidents.
However, it looks highly unlikely at this point that power-sharing can work between ZANU-PF, a pernicious monster excoriated by all Zimbabweans who are not part of it, and MDC, once hugely popular but now considerably discredited after failing to match ZANU-PF's clever manipulations. If they do reach an agreement, however unsatisfactory for the MDC and for Zimbabweans, and form something which can be called a government, will they be able to achieve anything?
Will they be able to work together in any way to stem the rising tide of cholera, restart the economy, and reform the civil service? Hardly. ZANU-PF has made it crystal clear that they will frustrate MDC at every turn. The recent spate of abductions of opposition and civil society activists leaves no doubt about their intentions. Weeks and months will go by as the players test each other out, jockey, manoeuvre, undermine and frustrate each other, while little will be done to deal with all the problems driving Zimbabweans to the borders in search of food, medicine, jobs and survival.
Little will be done to rein in those who take the law into their own hands, and anarchy is likely to prevail even in the presence of a power-sharing government.
If our politicians cannot rescue us, who can? The international community? So far, they have been unwilling. But cholera is a powerful little virus. Not only can it kill, it can wake up sleeping politicians.
Cholera is threatening the region. South Africa in particular has billions of rand of investment at stake - investment in the 2010 soccer World Cup, for a start. Can they allow political niceties such as 'sovereignty' to hold them back when cholera, which has the audacity not to respect sovereignty of nations, storms their borders?
Possibly, cholera, while taking its victims, may yet be our rescuer. The South Africans have already sent personnel and materials to assist in the fight to curb the disease, a fight spearheaded by UNICEF and the World Health Organization (WHO). But as long as they try to work with ZANU-PF we know that there will be interference, corruption and ultimately failure.
The signs are, however, that African governments, while gaining a greater sense of urgency, still appear to believe power-sharing can work and are calling for renewed negotiations while sending band aid assistance to deal with the cholera. If they believe in power-sharing, then they must make sure that they place enough pressure on ZANU-PF to ensure that 'sharing' does not become a dead word like 'Comrade'.
They must impose deadlines for effective forward movement and insist that they will not tolerate continued prevarication by ZANU-PF. They must stop placing pressure on the perceived soft target, MDC, and learn to face the real obstacle, Robert Mugabe, and stare him down with strong words and credible threats. Even then, however, ZANU-PF is highly unlikely to change, and MDC would simply waste more time and eventually be forced to return to the Southern African Development
Community (SADC) with a story of failure.
Is there an alternative to power sharing? There is, but it would require even more backbone from the regional governments. Many members of Zimbabwe's civil society were calling a year ago for the formation of a transitional authority. They believed then that ZANU-PF should be out of the equation if the country was to stop its slide into chaos and begin to build again.
Many of these members now feel that we have wasted more than a year holding elections which ZANU-PF never intended to allow themselves to lose, and trying to share power with an entity which can imagine nothing beyond their own greed. If the international community could now realise that we need an internationally sponsored, technocratically based transitional authority, and move quickly to install such an authority, we might yet be rescued.
It will require cooperation on the part of the Zimbabwean opposition to stop playing power games and allow those who can do the job to move into place - doctors, nurses, engineers, administrators who can restore clean water
supplies, tackle sewage and transport, while distributing massive amounts of food aid, treating the sick, and assisting farmers to prepare for next
winter's agricultural season.
This technical approach must be spread to the entire governmental sphere and it must be coordinated by a temporary administration. Such a transition would need at least two years to get underway, re-establish basic services, get food production going, and then deal with governance issues through providing a framework for constitutional reform, and elections at the end of the period.
* Mary Ndlovu is a Zimbabwean human rights activist. This article is a shortened version of the one first published by Pambazuka News. It is reprinted here courtesy of Pambazuka News.
|
|
|
|
| OPINIONS - OPINION |
|
 SADC and African Union; spineless talking shops
By Reginald Thabani Gola
11 December 2008
It sounds implausible and unacceptable, and yet possible and very acceptable to deposed former South African president, Thabo Mbeki, the SADC, the African Union and the United Nations, that on losing an election, tyrants can imprison all those who dare oppose them, torture them, rape the defiant women, kill them and dump them in shallow graves.
Yet Thabo Mbeki, the SADC, the African Union and the United Nations would, very nicely, ask the offending tyrant, to accommodate his democratically elected opponents in a government of national unity.
The message for the tyrant is: ‘Keep control of the same terror ministries responsible for the implementation of genocide!
SADC, the African Union and the United Nations have all failed the Zimbabwean people who demonstrated their choice of government by voting for the MDC in the March 2008 elections.
SADC in particular has carefully evaded the task of signaling to Mugabe that his political shenanigans and ruthless pursuit of power are unacceptable in this day and age. A man who has shamelessly conducted a one-man brutal electoral race, and self-anointed himself had the temerity to bull-dozed his way into the African Union and the SADC summits successfully.
Addressing his supporters soon after “winning” his one-man election, Mugabe said: “I am proceeding to the African Union summit in Egypt!... I want to see he who is clean who would dare lift a finger against me at the summit… They have worse-off situations in their respective countries!…”
For the record, he went and was embraced as a legitimate head of state by all, other than Botswana, Liberia, Nigeria, Zambia, Tanzania and Raila Odinga the Kenyan Prime Minister. Gabonese president Omar Bongo, another confirmed dictator, was very pleased with the continued swelling of the ranks of tyrants within the African Union so much that he congratulated Mugabe and told journalists that “Mugabe was a hero and president because he had taken the oath of office”.
Thabo Mbeki as a partisan facilitator in favour of Mugabe, the SADC and the African Union have a both important and urgent task of propping-up Mugabe’s ailing but brutal regime against the respective citizenry will. This is evidenced by the SADC and African Union over-investment on the major task to trick Morgan Tsvangirai into hurriedly going into a cheap, ambiguous and highly unrepresentative settlement.
It is prudent of Morgan Tsvangirai to resist the African fraudulent fast-track into a settlement of “zero” repute. It would be a great betrayal of those whose mandate he wields to go into a government of national unity on terms dictated by Mugabe and accepted by the spineless SADC leaders.
The people of Zimbabwe have suffered too much under Mugabe and deserve to be ruled by a government of their choice, and not by a liberation movement turned terrorist movement against the very people it liberated.
And why has SADC remained quiet over the mooted plan for Zimbabwe to have another election -internationally supervised? Is it because SADC is aware that such an election would humiliate their ruthless buddy, Mugabe?
Moreover, SADC have spoken out loudly against any possible United Nations sanctions against Mugabe.
The humanitarian crisis in Zimbabwe requires an urgent humanitarian solution as a separate entity rather than the fast-tracking of Morgan Tsvangirai into a clumsy and flimsy government of national unity.
One hopes that the attitude of SADC and AU on Zimbabwe is a wake-up call to the United Nations which has the power to make other provisions for intervention in its charter. The United Nations organization should be empowered to intervene in Zimbabwe before the situation deteriorates to an unmanageable level.
SADC and AU are simply not fit for purpose and will continue to wave their meaningless “paper mandates” while thousands of people die needlessly in Zimbabwe and in other countries on the continent.
The only thing of note one can say about SADC and the African Union is that their dismal record in statesmanship is second to none. What did these two organization do for Kenya in its hour of need when electoral fraud left over a thousand law-abiding citizens dead?
And over Mugabe’s twenty eight years of iron-fist rule, three times of election rigging, three terms of presidential illegitimacy, what has SADC and the AU done?
These two organizations have failed to rise above being talking shops and have stood aside while dictators such as Mugabe have kicked democracy in the teeth and disparaged criticism from the leaders of Botswana, Tanzania, Zambia, Nigeria, and Jacob Zuma, Desmond Tutu, Nelson Mandela, Raila Odinga and the entire west.
Endeavors by the late president of Zambia, Levy Mwanawasa and Botwana’s current President Ian Khama to change the SADC mindset have failed because their voices of reason are constantly undermined by the self-serving rhetoric of their spineless colleagues.
Not surprisingly, SADC has remained a talking shop where electoral rejects like Mugabe have undergone a rigorous free course on how to cling to power.
*Reginald Thabani Gola is a Zimbabwean political analyst, independent journalist, civil society and human rights activist Cell. 00267 75040090, 00267 74688127 E-mail: regtgola@yahoo.com
|
|
|
|
| OPINIONS - OPINION |
|
 Is the world about to turn its back on the Aids epidemic?
By Leonard Okello - Ugandan head of HIV and Aids programmes for ActionAid
December 1 2008
At the G8 summit in 2005, I was part of a delegation of Aids activists lobbying G8 leaders. I came with a simple message from my daughter, Smilie: “Tell them that I saw Doctor David who gave me medicine. I am now feeling better and I can go back to school. I am very happy.”
Smilie is HIV positive. She was able to go back to school and enjoy her life because she got the antiretroviral drugs she needed.
My message to world leaders was that by ensuring HIV treatment for all who need it, they could make a real difference to millions of men, women and children like my daughter.
A week later the G8 pledged HIV treatment for all by 2010. At the end of 2005 the UN committed to universal access to HIV prevention, treatment and care by 2010. These were momentous developments, and felt like a huge victory.
But the following May, the international community began passing the buck. At a UN Special Session on Aids they focussed on national Aids targets instead of the previously agreed global ones.
By arguing that responsibility for an effective Aids response lay with national governments, rich countries were let off the funding hook. Since then the global momentum for fighting Aids seems to have been lost.
The arrival of new debates, which falsely pitch health and Aids against each other and argue that the world should be investing in health systems as opposed to diseases like Aids, hasn’t helped.
The truth is few in the Aids movement would deny that strong health systems are needed to tackle HIV and other health issues. For ActionAid, it is not a case of either/or. Increased funding is needed for both. Investing in HIV services brings relief to countries where most of the disease burden is due to Aids.
We are also seeing the compartmentalisation of Aids. Instead of following a long term holistic approach, Aids has become projectised into three year blocks that often address specific areas, such as behaviour change around abstinence approaches, that are not tested and often do not face the reality of Aids in a particular community. And these projects are frequently overseen by careerist consultants whose sole aim appears to be the crushing of innovation.
What’s more, with projects has come a glut of acronyms. There are national control programmes and national aids commissions, international and national partnerships, national forums, theme groups, networks and umbrellas of networks, donor coordination groups, ministerial committees, country coordination mechanisms, interagency technical working groups, state, district, village and family aids control committees, and on, and on.
In the meantime, things are not getting much better. The Global Fund for Aids, TB and Malaria does not have enough money and global think tanks are questioning the future of UNAIDS.
In this new world of multiple crises - food, climate, terrorism and now the global financial crisis - it may not seem the best time to start discussing the hopes of the 33 million people living with HIV who are still counting on rich countries to keep their promises. But if not now, when?
|
|
|
|
| OPINIONS - OPINION |
|
 Zimbabwe's living hell
By Nkepile Mabuse - CNN
21 October 2008
I recently returned from Zimbabwe on an assignment that could have seen me behind bars if Robert Mugabe's government got wind of the fact that I, a CNN correspondent, was in the country.
CNN and other news agencies are banned from operating in Zimbabwe and those who violate this ban face arrest. When you are inside Zimbabwe you realise why Mugabe does not want the world to see what is going on.
Zimbabweans are dying on a daily basis because they lack basic things. Going into the hospitals was a horrifying experience. I visited two of the country 's largest public hospitals and found people lying on stretchers with no doctors available to attend to them.
Doctors and nurses have left the country's collapsing public health care system in droves and those who have stayed behind lack the most basic resources such as gloves, drugs and syringes. Machines cannot be repaired and life-saving operations are routinely cancelled.
A notice in a visitors room said it all: Please remember to collect your relative's belongings after they die. Zimbabweans are dying of treatable and preventable diseases on a daily basis. In the 15 minutes that I was in a ward at Harare hospital someone died of AIDS, one of the leading killers in Zimbabwe. Doctors say with anti-retroviral drugs he could have lived longer but the ones provided by aid organizations are not enough to go around.
The desperate wailing of one of this man's family members will remain with me forever. It echoed in the empty hospital passages laden with helplessness and utter frustration. Another patient died two days after my visit, he had meningitis and pneumonia. In his case doctors did not even have antibiotics to give him.
I saw people looking after their own sick because there just aren't enough nurses in the hospitals, a family gathered around their dying loved one because doctors could do nothing more for him.
There is now an outbreak of cholera in the country because Mugabe's government says it does not have enough chemicals to purify water so they have simply stopped providing it, even in parts of the capital Harare. I went to Chitungwiza, a township just outside the capital. People there told me that they have not had running water since October of last year.
Sewage pipes have burst all over the capital and surrounding areas. This raw sewage is contaminating wells and streams where many are now getting water. And people are getting sick and even dying from consuming dirty water.
I met a family of seven that has lost its sole provider to cholera. Joy Kabade was 29, and had recently been promoted to senior lecturer at the University of Zimbabwe. He was in the process of building his family a new home and planned to get married the day I visited his family. They were devastated and angry. Kabade had little brothers and sisters who depended on him to pay for their school fees and to feed them.
He was the only person employed in that household. A promising life prematurely ended and a family shattered because a government that seems determined to rule Zimbabwe forever is unable to provide the very citizens it wants to govern, with bare basics.
After every long day speaking to people who are suffering with no indication things will get better anytime soon, I would wonder how Mugabe sleeps at night knowing that his policies are destroying lives on a daily basis.
Mugabe keeps blaming Britain and the United States for the country's woes but Zimbabweans have had him as a leader for nearly three decades and it is him they expected to create an environment for them to prosper and succeed, not Britain and the United States.
At the moment, the average Zimbabwean survives on one meal a day, if anything at all. The United Nations estimates that nearly half the population will need food assistance by early next year.
Zimbabwe used to have the highest literacy on the continent, today getting an education is almost impossible. Teachers earn so little many of them have downed tools, refusing to teach. As a result the majority of the country's pupils will not be ready to write exams this year and will have to stay in
the same grade next year. Those who want their children educated have to pay for private lessons in U.S. dollars.
With the highest inflation rate in the world, now officially sitting at over 200 million percent, the Zimbabwean dollar has become so worthless that professionals are being paid in food and fuel. "If you get paid in money and not fuel you will not be able to drive yourself to work everyday," a private school teacher told me, because fuel is indexed in foreign currency.
The day before I left Zimbabwe I gave a waiter a U.S. $20 tip. The man started crying he had been saving up every cent he made to get a passport. A passport costs U.S. $220 in Zimbabwe, way out of reach for ordinary people (A doctor earns the equivalent of under U.S. $5 a month) This man said my tip had brought him closer to realizing his dream of leaving Zimbabwe.
The very government that presided over the collapse of the economy and the currency does not want its own money and expects Zimbabweans to pay for passports in U.S. dollars. This waiter asked for my email address and said he wants to stay in touch with me and keep me updated on his new life outside Zimbabwe.
Yes I was happy to have helped him, but depressed that not only is life hell in that country, Mugabe has his citizens trapped because they don't have the foreign currency he demands of them to get out. Despite the risk, I will definitely be going back to Zimbabwe because the world needs to know the truth Mugabe is so determined to hide.
*Nkepile Mabuse is a South African journalist working for CNN. The above article is published courtesy of CNN
|
|
|
|
| OPINIONS - OPINION |
|
 A need to knock heads together in Zimbabwe
17 October 2008
From The Economist print edition
MORE than a month after Robert Mugabe agreed to share power with Morgan Tsvangirai, the pair have yet to start governing together to rescue Zimbabwe from its rapidly deepening misery.
As The Economist went to press, there were hopes once more of a breakthrough in the negotiations. But Thabo Mbeki, who oversaw the original agreement, is no longer South Africa's president and has lost the heft he needs to persuade Mr Mugabe to implement it.
In any event Mr Mbeki should step down as mediator and give way to Jacob Zuma, (pictured) South Africa's probable next president. And if Mr Zuma is unable or unwilling to take on the job, the UN's former secretary-general, Kofi Annan, a proven negotiator, should be asked in to break the stalemate.
Mr Mugabe has been stalling, perhaps in the hope of wriggling out of the deal altogether. Within days of signing it, he flew off with a vast entourage to rant against "imperialists" at the UN in New York, without the slightest indication that anything had changed back home.
Since then, he has breached a plain understanding that the two men (and a small third party) would share out the main ministries in an equitable manner. Most recently, he has unilaterally handed his own party virtually all the portfolios with real clout, including those that run the army, the police, the courts, foreign affairs, the mines, the state-owned media, local government and land resettlement.
His spokesman has hinted, presumably as a prelude to offering a concession, that the finance ministry-a poisoned chalice if ever there was one, since inflation is running officially at 231m% and unofficially in the billions-may be open to discussion. The opposition Movement for Democratic Change is rightly refusing to be tricked into playing second fiddle.
Meanwhile, Zimbabwe is dying. It is hard to imagine the misery worsening, yet it is. The currency is worthless. Swathes of public-sector workers are no longer getting paid enough even to buy a few loaves of bread a month; many are not getting paid at all. More than 80% of the people are thought to have no job, beyond subsistence and barter. Some 3m in a population of around 12m have fled abroad.
Harrowing reports are filtering out that people are starting to die of starvation. More than 1.4m are suffering from HIV/AIDS. The UN's World Food Programme is trying to keep 2m people alive with food handouts but says that another 3m may need feeding by early next year if mass starvation is to be averted.
Mr Mugabe's thugs are still beating and sometimes killing supposed backers of Mr Tsvangirai. The handful of white farmers left on the land is still being harassed. Some of Mr Tsvangirai's closest colleagues still face bogus charges, including treason; the state media peddle packs of lies; foreign reporters cannot visit freely; many foreign charities are unable to operate.
One of the manifold defects of the power-sharing agreement orchestrated by Mr Mbeki last month is that it lacks both a strong arbitrating mechanism and a strong mediator to implement the deal and knock the parties' heads together when things get stuck.
The Southern African Development Community (SADC), the 14-country club that has tried to break Zimbabwe's impasse, reappointed Mr Mbeki as chief "facilitator" after the deal was struck, though his stature has shrivelled since he lost the presidency of his own country last month.
That is why it is time for Mr Zuma, head of South Africa's ruling African National Congress (ANC), to displace Mr Mbeki as mediator. Apart from being the coming man in South Africa, he is by nature a more forceful figure. He did a fine job making peace between the ANC and his fellow Zulus after apartheid ended.
He would be a lot readier than Mr Mbeki ever was to twist Mr Mugabe's arm. True, the SADC recently renewed Mr Mbeki's mandate, but there is no fixed-term contract; it should quietly press him to step down with good grace.
Mr Zuma may plead that he is too busy trying to heal divisions in the ANC after its own recent internecine battles. In that case the SADC, backed by the African Union, should call on Mr Annan, the experienced Ghanaian who, after running the UN for ten years, managed to cajole Kenya's warring parties into a power-sharing compromise early this year.
He has several of the qualities that Mr Mbeki so manifestly lacks, in particular an unwillingness to be pushed around by a clever 84-year-old who refuses to accept that his time is up.
Mr Mugabe, of course, may well seek to reject the good offices of either Mr Zuma or Mr Annan. But as his country descends even deeper into chaos, his ability to pick and choose his mediators is shrinking fast. And Zimbabweans now desperately need a stronger one than Mr Mbeki.
*The above OPINION article is published courtesy of The Economist print edition
|
|
|
|
| OPINIONS - OPINION |
|
 Zero crisis in the African National Congress
By Reginald Gola
30 September 2008
Whatever the detractors of the South African National Congress think of the choice of Galema Motlanthe as interim president of the republic, following Thabo Mbeki’s resignation, there is no doubt that a democratic process was strictly adhered to.
Indeed, Motlanthe’s leadership qualities have shone beyond the confines of the ANC as evidenced by the multi-party reaction to his election in parliament on Thursday the 25th of September in Cape Town.
Motlanthe’s triumph didn’t only serve as a wake-up-call for those members within the ANC and opposition political parties with a narrow view, which did not go beyond former president Thabo Mbeki. The Democratic Alliance’s desperate trick to tap the prophets of doom failed, along with Joseph Seremane, the candidate they fielded to square-up against Motlanthe.
Did they really expect Seremane, a black horse rejected within the Democratic Alliance’s own ranks for the party presidency, to get the nod ahead of Motlanthe?
Not surprisingly, Seremane secured the Democratic Alliance’s fifty votes and nothing more, while Motlanthe flew high with two hundred and sixty nine votes to secure the presidency of the republic. The forty spoilt papers confirm that Seremane was not a man of presidential material.
The ANC has ridden high and kept its dignity against malicious slander thrown at it by the opposition parties. Ignorance, and there has been a lot of that of late, has seen a significant number of both opposition and uninformed ANC factions, investing much energy in malicious and sometimes, defamatory activities against the new leadership of the party.
One political clown, Bantu-Bonke Holomisa shamelessly referred to a well constituted ANC urgent meeting which finalized the re-call of the then, president Thabo Mbeki, a “kangaroo court”. This was despite the fact that it was the ANC that recruited, groomed, deployed, and re-deployed Thabo Mbeki all his life.
Hellen Zille, of the Democratic Alliance, has desperately tried to advance the doctrine of unfairness in the Mbeki affair and advocated for Mbeki’s side of the story. Zille must be told in no uncertain terms that the issue of who leads the ANC remains an internal matter, and internal proceedings.
Mbeki is a seasoned and highly respected ANC cadre who has been retired in the best interests of the organization that he has worked for all his life. Opposition parties must desist from peeping over the fences of the ruling party and organize themselves into governments-in-waiting in readiness to win the next election. A sensible pipe dream!
Hellen Zille’s is so politically naive she is not even aware that ANC president, Jacob Zuma, is a bona fide South African subject to the same constitution that governs all citizens of that country. Malice driven, she has desperately called for JZ’s head at all costs. For Zille, Jacob Zuma must be herded to the gallows with all the best available short-cuts.
The Democratic Alliance has even vowed to engage its own vodooistic legal proceedings against Jacob Zuma in the event that justice prevails in his {Zuma}’s favour. Jacob Zuma has already been found guilty before trial! This is direct confirmation that South Africa has successfully nurtured token opposition. The calibre of the current opposition is too flimsy, dangerous for governance and, therefore, the public must be protected against such.
The Democratic Alliance stance further confirms that there will be no sensible opposition in South Africa until such a time that the ANC disintegrates.
Jacob Zuma presides over a full-fledged democracy in the ANC, a democracy highly sensitive to all forms of injustice, a system that nurtured a rare breed of cadres of Thabo Mbeki’s texture; humble and loyal in both good and bad times. Therefore, he who has the power to appoint equally wields the power to disappoint without fear or favour.
ANC adversaries, such as General Bantu-Bonke Holomisa’s who stage-managed alleged massive converts to his United Democratic Party from the ANC, will always be a peripheral figures in South African politics. No wonder Bantu-Bonke has adopted cheap Robert Mugabe tactics with his baseless claim that he has managed to convert eight hundred and fifty ANC members to his party! Shame on you General Bantu-Bonke Holomisa.
The opposition has kept its fingers crossed for a possible split within the ANC. It has tried to mourn the Mbeki departure more than Mbeki himself for the sole reason of sensitizing him to what it dims as grossly unfair and humiliating handling of his resignation by the ANC leadership.
The opposition had an opportunity to call for Mbeki’s early departure over his HIV/AIDS blunder which could have received a ready and urgent international ear. The opposition also failed to meaningfully challenge Mbeki over his handling of the Zimbabwean political crisis.
And when Manto Tshabala-Msimang (nicknamed 'Dr Beetroot’) advanced her poorly researched “beetroot” thesis, the South African opposition kept on clapping hands in parliament. By the way, Dr Beetroot, has now been re-deployed to the presidency.
*Reginald Thabani Gola is a Zimbabwean political analyst, a civil society and human rights activist.
He can be contacted on Cell. 00267 75040090
|
|
|
|
| OPINIONS - OPINION |
|
 Mugabe 'lectures' Khama on diplomacy
By Reginald Gola
22 September 2006
The Thabo Mbeki brokered Zimbabwe power-sharing deal signing ceremony between the two Movement for Democratic Change formations and ZANU PF became a great opportunity for Mugabe to reach Botswana’s president, Lt. General Seretse Khama Ian Khama directly over his uncompromising position on Zimbabwe's violent one-man presidential electoral race, and its out-come.
Mugabe and cronies were highly disturbed with the late Zambian president, Levy Patrick Mwanawasa, Liberian president, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, and Botswana’s Khama straight jacket political vocabulary on Zimbabwe. Mugabe is used to either perennial silence, or praise even where it is not due.
In the 80s, when Mugabe sent over twenty thousand Ndebele people “biting the dust” in shallow graves and disused mine pits, he continued to receive various leadership accolades and honorary degrees from across the globe. And so far those atrocities have become water under the bridge for the SADC, the African Union and the United Nations.
The brave and consistent swipe by Botswana’s minister of Foreign Affairs and International Co-operation, Phandu Skelemani, and that of the Zambian Minister of Foreign Affairs against the clumsy state of affairs in Zimbabwe, and a self-anointed head of state, were considered to be a breach of protocol by the Mugabe inner-circle. To Khama, Mugabe said; “No! Presidents don’t talk just like that against fellow-presidents. In public! We talk at SADC and the African Union as presidents…”
Mugabe went outrageously astray from the occasion for the better part of his speech, and there was visible impatience or embarrasment on the faces of the delegates including his wife Grace, also known as “amai Teaspoon ye Sugar” for master-minding the cheap and false claim that Zimbabwe’s Prime Minister designate, Morgan Tsvangirai, had struggled to sell the country at a give-away price of one teaspoon of sugar to the former colonial masters.
Old age comes with impaired vision. Mugabe has failed to understand a very straight statement from the above named critics of his primitive rule. The statement was simply that Mugabe was, by then, not a head of state, but the leader of Zimbabwe’s notorious ZANU PF party; a former liberation movement that had allowed itself to sink to the level of a terrorist movement against the citizenry.
The protests against Mugabe’s dictatorship were within the provisions of all the three principal custodians of good governance, that is the SADC, the African Union and the United Nations.
President Khama and others were simply observing the provisions of the above organizations charters. Selective justice is what Thabo Mbeki comfortably, refers to as “an African victory”.
What in Rwanda, Somalia and the Sudan, these institutions have referred to as genocide, in Zimbabwe they have comfortably shifted goal posts, and referred to it in many names ranging from sovereignty, crisis, no crisis, violence requiring Mbeki quiet diplomacy, and later, “an African victory”. All that president Khama was being lectured on, was that “…Boy, if I rig the next election by whatever means that I might find fit, you must stay clear of my victory… like others do. .. Remember we are only talking twelve months away…Get me well and tell the same to that seriously indisciplined and highly undiplomatic minister of yours, … That Phandu Skelemani … Pass the word to Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, and the Zambians too…If you want war with me … please come out in the open! … I am ready…” While Thabo Mbeki would like the world to believe that what has happened in Zimbabwe is an “African victory”, a victory to be alluded to, the truth is that it is the institutionalization of “African electoral fraud”.
It is the trivialization of the electoral process. Africa, the SADC, the African Union and the United Nations framework that took fatal short-cuts to recognize Mugabe as head of state at a time that he had committed electoral fraud in broad daylight, at a time when he still wielded a machete and a bayonet against the citizenry which had democratically cast him into the political grave-yard, at a time when his hands were still dripping with fresh citizenry blood, is a shocking story and a great and grave sign of moral decay within the SADC, the African Union and the United Nations organizations.
These organizations are already borrowing excessively from the code of the jungle that govern the third world. These organizations are now over-crowded with birds of the same feather, tyrants. Mafia-type of gangsterism is so much in evidence at the SADC, the African Union and the United Nations.
It sounds impossible and unacceptable; and yet possible; and acceptable, that on losing the election, tyrants can imprison all those who dare oppose them, torture them, rape the defenceless women, kill them in horrible ways, burn their bodies and dump them in shallow graves ……intimidate their way back to power … And the SADC, the African Union and the United Nations would, very nicely, ask the offending tyrant to accommodate his democratically winning opponents in a government of national unity. {Petina Gappah, Mail & Guardian, 25 – 31 July 2008} Africa has made political nausea inflicting history over the Zimbabwean genocide. Mbeki has packaged dust-bin legacy which he calls “an African victory”.
Reginald Thabani Gola is a Zimbabwean political analyst, civil society and human rights activist. He can be contacted on 00267 75040090
|
|
|
|
| OPINIONS - OPINION |
|
 The dynamics of Zimbabwean politics
By Silence Chihuri
05 September 2008
ZIMBABWEAN politics has always been very adaptive and fluid when it comes to dealing with difficult national questions. When the struggle against discrimination kicked off in earnest in the 1950's with the formation of the Rhodesian African National Congress in 1952, there were all the tell-tale signs that it was going to be a long and difficult process.
This is why the long walk to the independence that came about in 1980 was littered with the formation, re-formation, break-up as well as re-union of political parties and politicians alike. This was done in the search of the right leaders as well as the right calibre of movements to champion the cause for independence. On the same token the individuals as well as the political movements that were not up to the job were left on the wayside of our national politics. There are quite many of them.
When the MDC was formed in 1999 it was welcomed as a necessary political movement to steer Zimbabwe from a dictatorship to multiparty democracy. The new party was welcomed in similar fashion to the way ZAPU and ZANU had been embraced by disfranchised Africans, as liberation forces to steer the country from minority white rule to plural democracy.
Just as during the struggle against colonialism, there were bound to be splinter parties stemming out of the MDC. When the MDC split in 2005, there were at first mixed views about the reasons behind the split, among ordinary Zimbabweans. Within the party itself, supporters went either side of the divide.
People close to the MDC had to make very hard choices as to what really mattered in the national cause. This was why a significant number who had initially sided with the Mutambara MDC faction, went back to the wing of the MDC that would emerge as the main one led by founding President Morgan Tsvangirai.
When the MDC split, both factions had a somewhat fair share of party heavyweights as well as founding figures. However, in due course the weight of some of the heavy weights would be drastically reduced to lightweights.
At the time of the split, there were a lot of people who felt that Tsvangirai had not handled the whole thing properly, especially the fateful vote that set the split mode in motion as well as the after math. I was one of those people and my main bone of contention stemmed from what I thought was Tsvangirai's failure to rein in Welshman Ncube in the earlier stages, just before the split.
I was particularly incensed with the way Ncube had clearly sought to undermine Tsvangirai during their last trip to Europe and the UK while the party was still united. It was there for all to see and the members of the then MDC UK executive were clearly unhappy about that.
However, on the whole, the trip was a resounding success because we organised one of the biggest ever rallies addressed by Tsvangirai in the UK, at Friends Hall in London. But we could that the party was tottering on the brink of a split because the Secretary General and the president were clearly at logger heads. But most importantly, we could see that the problem was definitely Ncube because we had clashed with him before on other issues over which we felt he was over-arching on.
Tsvangirai was due back to the UK in the coming weeks after that animosity filled trip. I was going to be involved in organising that trip. I wanted to set things straight with him so I phoned him in Harare to discuss the trip and the other issues. I told him about the need to deal with Ncube before they came again but Tsvangirai told me that Ncube had to be left to the people to judge and only time would tell.
However, that trip never happened because the MDC split up and the rest is history. I explore this further in my impending book, Zimbabwe - The Road to Ruin. I just said to myself what sort of party president is this who won't do anything about his errant Secretary General only leaving him to the people? I asked myself, what people?
When Ncube was roughed-up by fellow MDC members, so such that he had to go into hiding for days, I wondered if that was what Tsvangirai had meant when he said he would leave Ncube to the people? As it later transpired, Tsvangirai actually meant that the people of Zimbabwe would have a referendum on Ncube's political career in their own time.
According to Tvsangirai, it was not up to him to cut short Ncube's supposedly promising career and have another Zimbabwean's political blood on his hands. Effectively Tsvangirai left Ncube to posterity. That is one thing I failed to see then but I now see very clearly because had Tsvangirai fired Ncube from his coveted post of SG, every Zimbabwean, maybe including myself, would have accused him of ending the promising career of an emerging politician.
But come March 2008, the people of Zimbabwe, Matabeleland to be specific, gave Ncube and overdue red card. I don't know how many times I told Ncube that his politics no matter how seemingly colourful, was not inspired by national advancement, but rather personal self interest. I was proven right as well because regardless of how seemingly confident Ncube was to win a parliamentary seat, he was defeated by Thokozani Khupe.
The post March 29 08 events also drew parallels between the politics of the 1970's and now. Even after the split of the MDC when I joined the faction led by Mutambara, my main reason was the stagnation of ideas in the party. I thought there was a need for a rejuvenation of ideas within the MDC! I am adamant I was not the only one who felt like that at that time. But I was equally clear that any new direction would never come from Ncube.
I made it very clear and in no uncertain terms to Mutambara when he came on the scene that if he did not deal with Ncube effectively then this whole rejuvenation and re-unification of the MDC thing would never happen.
In a matter of weeks I was satisfied that it was not going to happen and I left that faction with my colleagues and we issued a statement to that effect. Ncube was the one who was running the show and that is why there was never going to be any prospect of the two MDC factions being re-united.
But even then, I still doubted Tsvangirai's capability to be an effective leader because he had not dealt effectively with Ncube. However in March 2008 Tsvangirai's idea of dealing with Ncube was brought into full action in the form of a resounding rejection of the Bulawayo legislator by his own people. The people dealt with Ncube according to Tsvangirai's political manual.
The other faction was never about Mutambara because he was not and is still not the one in charge. Instead, it is Ncube who is in charge and this is why even after losing his parliamentary seat he is still commanding a lot of essential duties. No matter what happens from now and how the protracted negotiations between the MDC and ZANU PF would be concluded, it has been made abundantly clear that at least Tsvangirai has taken the right stance on the kind of power arrangements that need to be made between the MDC and ZANU PF, post March 29.
This is what has won a lot of former Tsvangirai doubters over to his side. At the moment there are a lot of people who do not necessarily belong to the MDC but are firmly behind Tsvangirai. These are people who were never on his side before March 2008.
*Silence Chihuri is a Zimbabwean who writes from Scotland. He can be contacted on 07706376705 or silencechihuri@googlemail.com
|
|
|
|
| OPINIONS - OPINION |
|
 Stupid Zimbabwe talks going nowhere fast
04 September 2008
By George B.N. Ayittey
FOLKS, I don't know about you but I have been fervently ticked off by these blow-by-blow accounts of these on and off again, never-ending talks. I am so angry. An African country is being destroyed right before our own very eyes and we seem to be totally incapable of doing anything about it. So much misery, so much suffering and it is so unnecessary.
The talks have collapsed. I could crow about this, saying "I told you so." But that would be hollow or meaningless when there is massive suffering in Zimbabwe. Two questions about the talks:
What are these talks about? Land redistribution? Colonial injustices and legacies? It is about POWER. Now we know who are the real zombies who kept insisting on land redistribution, western colonialism and imperialism. They have all been fooled because these factors are NOT on the negotiating table. The talks are about POWER-SHARING, damn it.
Didn't we hear that two new MEDIATORS - one from the AU and the other from the U.N. - have been added? How come we have not heard from them and only from Thabo Mbeki? Snookered again, huh?
Albert Einstein once defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. These talks have been going for at least eight bloody years and they are still talking. Look, human patience is not inexhaustible.
But leave Mugabe alone; he is not the problem. We know what he wants. It is we in the opposition, and those who want change in Zimbabwe who are the problem. It is painful to criticize the opposition because it might sound like rubbing salt into their wounds. But we must be honest with ourselves and be willing to face the painful fact that we made some tactical blunders. We must accept this reality and readjust our strategies accordingly.
BLUNDER No. 1: Divided Opposition Front
How in hell do we present a DIVIDED opposition front to Mugabe? How, how, how? We were outfoxed when Mugabe rolled out and shepherded Arthur Mutambara to the negotiating table. What motivates Arthur more: His own personal lust for power or the welfare of the Zimbabwean PEOPLE? And if Mugabe has brought in Arthur, why didn't we call his bluff by insisting on bringing in Simba Makoni, church leaders and civil society group leaders because that's where Morgan's real power lies?
Maybe, each of the three parties - Arthur, Mugabe and Morgan - are so obsessed with POWER and distribution of cabinet positions that they don't care one hoot about the massive suffering of the Zimbabwean PEOPLE. If so, let them talk, talk, talk and talk about who gets what cabinet post and some "Charles Taylor" or "Laurent Kabila" will emerge from the bush to knock some sense into their heads.
BLUNDER No.2: Government of National Unity (GNU) is FLAWED
Sometimes, Zimbabwe's opposition leaders behave as if the country was the only one colonized by Britain. As such, they adamantly refuse to pay much attention to the experiences of other African countries and are bent on "re-inventing" the wheel.
Regarding power-sharing talks in a government of national unity (GNU), this has never worked in post colonial Africa. It never worked in Angola, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Sierra Leone, or Sudan. Even in South Africa, it lasted for only one year, when the de Klerk National Party pulled out of the ANC in 1996.
In Kenya, the GNU is in intensive care unit. The reason why GNU has such a dismal record is simple: Jostling arises over the distribution of cabinet positions. Nobody is satisfied with what they get and the wrangling continues. Everybody wants the ministry of defence and finance portfolios. To satisfy everyone, more cabinet positions are created, which inevitably leads to the swelling of the bureaucracy. Kenya now has 92 cabinet and deputy ministers!
So why should the MDC go along with GNU? Even if a GNU can be crafted, no incumbent will cede more power to the opposition leader and take a junior position. It has never happened in post colonial African history. So should the MDC even go for this?
BLUNDER No.3: Not knowing the enemy
The first rule in warfare is to know the enemy. You must know the strengths and weaknesses of your enemy. You do not, I repeat, you do not fight an enemy on the turf on which he is strongest. For example, the military has an awesome superiority in weapons but they are numerically inferior,
constituting less than 0.1 percent of the population in any African country. So you don't fight a military regime in the urban areas where they are concentrated. You s-t-r-e-t-c-h them geographically. Get it?
Let me ask you this: What are the weaknesses of the Mugabe regime? Scratching your head? So tell me this, how do you defeat an enemy when you do not know his weaknesses and are fighting him on the turf on which he is strongest? That is exactly what the MDC has been doing.
It is Mugabe who is calling all the shots. He decides when to resume and end the talks. He decides when to re-open Parliament and the MDC goes by his playbook and falls in line. This is absurd.
BLUNDER No. 4: Ineffectual opposition tactics
Of course, we all want peaceful, non-violent resolution to the crisis in Zimbabwe. Engaging the Mugabe regime in dialogue is the preferred option. But should that fail, we must have Plan B, C, or D. It seems the opposition has no such alternative plans. To be sure, street protests - as in the Philippines, Nepal or Thailand are out of the question. But are street protests the only internal options?
There are other non-violent options. Shut down the civil service. Shut down the internal transportation system. Shut down the universities. Civil servants strike, doctors strike, lecturers strike, students strike, newspapers strike, farmers strike, etc. etc.
The MDC has not considered these intern alternatives because it is wedded to an externalist strategy. Besides, it seems to be suspicious of CIVIL SOCIETY groups or other stakeholders, believing that it alone can deliver change.
Of course, we all know that the MDC faces formidable odds, not to mention the vicious attacks, beatings, imprisonment, and the torture MDC officials have endured. At least, four attempts have been made on Morgan's life. We all remember his swollen face and lacerations after he was severely beaten up in 2006. All that is etched in our collective memory.
Nonetheless, we have to be honest with ourselves. This crisis erupted in 2000 and since then, the PEOPLE have patiently waited for change or an improvement in their living conditions. But nothing has been achieved by the opposition. And patience is not inexhaustible. If the MDC can't deliver, the
people will start looking elsewhere.
The MDC needs to do some serious "soul-searching" - a self-critical analysis. Its tactics aren't working. A clear distinction needs to be made between an objective and the tactics or means of achieving that objective. Criticizing a tactic as ineffectual does not mean one is opposed to the objective.
The current MDC tactic is flawed. It seems to rest solely on seeking recognition of Morgan's March 29 electoral victory from African leaders, SADC, regional leaders and the broader international community, as well as support from the same to pressure the Mugabe regime to cede power to the
MDC-T. There are so many problems with this strategy:
It is externally-oriented. Quite apart from the diplomatic hoops such a strategy must jump through - for example, the risk of being seen as interfering in the internal affairs of a sovereign country - rare has been the case where external factors instigated political change in a post colonial African country. Beginning in the early 1990s, ALL political changes in Africa occurred from within. Even though the West eventually imposed sanctions against apartheid South Africa, change in that country came from within when the Convention for a Democratic South Africa (CODESA) was convened.
The logistics of securing international sanctions, condemnations and embargoes are daunting. How long do you think it would take the United Nations to impose sanctions against the Mugabe regime, assuming no country would veto that resolution? How long do you think it would take, say the U.S.or Britain, to send a "Kissinger" to talk Mugabe out of power? Since Zimbabwe is land-locked, the most effective sanctions would be AFRICAN. Neighbouring counties can seal their borders, cut communication and power lines. But how long do you think it would take the neighbouring countries to do this? 10, 20 years? No, till hell freezes over.
SADC, AU, and African leaders are totally hopeless and useless when it comes to effecting political change in another African country. Do I even have to say this? If you know this already, then what is the point of going to these bodies and leaders for help in effecting change in Zimbabwe?
Even then, international sanctions don't move dictators. They never toppled Saddam Hussein, Kim Il Sung of North Korea, Castro of Cuba, Abacha of Nigeria, Ghaddafi of Libya, among others.
Rarer still is foreign intervention. The only occasion the United Nations intervenes is when an African country has totally collapsed: Somalia (1992), Liberia, Sierra Leone, Congo DR. Three cases of African intervention may be noted: Libya into Chad (1976), Tanzania into Uganda to topple Idi Amin
(1978) and Ethiopian into Somalia (2006). Zimbabwe hasn't totally collapsed, nor is any neighbouring willing to invade.
For the MDC to stick bull-headedly to externally-driven forces for change in Zimbabwe is insane. Morgan keeps hopping around from one African capital to the next, achieving NOTHING, except tepid assurances of support and sympathy.
Time is not on the side of the MDC. People are rapidly losing faith in its ability to deliver change. And if people lose faith in the MDC, they will start "looking elsewhere" - even at rebel leaders.
*George Ayittey is a prominent Ghanaian economist, author and president of
the Free Africa Foundation in Washington DC.
|
|
|
|
| OPINIONS - OPINION |
|
 Zimbabwe - the plan comes unstuck
By Eddie Cross
28th August 2008
When MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai refused to sign the agreement already approved by both Mugabe and Mutambara two weeks ago, it is certain that the one person who was not surprised was Mugabe. He knew from the beginning that Tsvangirai would never agree to the post of Prime Minister with responsibility but no power.
In fact the wily old devil had been negotiating for a long time knowing that when the final crunch came, Tsvangirai would walk away.
But the plan started to unravel before he had any opportunity to gloat. The MDC did not just refuse to sign but put in an alternative that in their view was practical, consistent with the outcome of the March 29th elections and workable. The second development was that Mr. Mbeki did not automatically endorse the idea of a unity government between Zanu and the Mutambara faction of the MDC. Instead he said that the problem would go to the SADC summit that weekend for arbitration and that he would go on from there.
Even so Mugabe was still confident - he knew how to handle his detractors in the SADC and was a past master at subterfuge. At the summit Tsvangirai ran into a situation where he faced not just a recalcitrant Mugabe, but also Mutambara and Welshman Ncube who made it clear, in both the plenary and the closed sessions that they were backing Mugabe in this situation. They argued that we were being unreasonable in not signing the deal as they had already done and that if Tsvangirai continued to refuse to sign up, they would go into a unity government with Zanu PF.
Mutambara played the role of "power broker" claiming that he held the balance of power between Zanu and the MDC and would use that influence to ensure that a unity government under Mugabe would have a majority in Parliament. As you can imagine this created severe difficulties for Tsvangirai and his team as well as for our many friends in the region.
So the SADC summit decided to test the Mugabe/Mutambara hypothesis and get them to convene Parliament and see who ended up controlling the House of Assembly. Mbeki called for the formal opening of Parliament and in 10 days this was put into effect. After a delay of 5 months Parliament was called and on Monday the new Members of Parliament and the Senate were sworn into office.
The issue at stake was quite simple - who controlled a majority in the lower House and therefore the third arm of the State? Behind the scenes activity was intense. Both Zanu and the MDC Mutambara held caucuses with their representatives and tried to whip them into line. Threats were made against those expected to rebel against the Party line and the regime pulled out all the stops to try and whittle down the MDC majority. They attempted to bribe MP's they issued warrants of arrest against others and there were blatant attempts to threaten and intimidate.
The MDC went to great lengths to protect their legislators - people in hiding were given security and moved to safe houses, MP's were ordered to switch accommodation at the last minute to ensure their safety overnight. On the day, those MP's who were under threat (15 of them) were transported to the Parliament and then smuggled into the building via a back door.
Those using the front door, even with diplomats watching, were arrested - one escaping and making it into the building and the other two being hauled off to the Central Police Station. We managed to get one out of police custody in time for him to be sworn and to vote, but we were one short when we convened at 10.00 hrs.
After the swearing in, we were asked to elect a Speaker by secret ballot.The atmosphere was electric - the tensions between the MDC, many of whom were new, and the Zanu PF benches were palpable.
Zanu PF were supremely confident. I voted and then walked out of the building with a Zanu PF
legislator. He said to me: "You know what is happening in there?" he pointed back at the House."You are going to lose this vote, we have bought many of your people and you cannot win against a disciplined Zanu-PF!" I grunted in reply: "Wait and see".
At 13.30 hrs the place erupted - MDC had won the vote for Speaker by 110 votes to 98. We then went on to elect his deputy and this was also MDC. We now controlled the lower House and the Parliamentary Committees. Under our
constitution the Speaker is the third most important post in the country. When the President is incapacitated he acts as the President until a new President is elected. Zanu PF was completely stunned - it was their first defeat in the House for 28 years.
The majority of the Mutambara MP's and 4 Zanu PF legislators voted for our candidate. The first major defection by Zanu PF legislators since we entered the fray in 2000. It gave the MDC control of the House and a clear response to the question raised by the SADC leadership. It also meant that Mutambara is probably finished politically and that Mugabe's plan to form a unity government with him and to then move on without Tsvangirai, controlling a majority in the House that Zanu PF could gradually increase by eliminating MDC legislators, in tatters.
Mbeki was not long in responding and called for the talks to resume to deal with the remaining issues. There is not a great deal to talk about - 98 per cent of the agreement has been wrapped up and it's just the central aspect of the power and authority of the Prime Minister and the issue of the governors and the special Senate seats (5) that are outstanding.
Mugabe must now face his regional mentors against the background that he has lost an election, held a run off election that was not recognised by the region and is in limbo politically. He has also now lost control of the Lower House and faces grave difficulties in securing support for his legislative programme, including budgets.
It would appear that the plan for a unity government has more or less collapsed. Mugabe was holding back two Senate seats and two governor positions, I suspect as rewards for Mutambara and Ncube. I also hear that Emmerson Munangagwa was set to be appointed to the watered down position of PM and that they would then implement the deal and claim legitimacy from the SADC process. Instead they are again thrown into the lion's den with a hungry, angry lion and no defence.
Eddie Cross is a Zimbabwe member of parliament for the Movement for Democratic Change |
|
|
|
| OPINIONS - OPINION |
|
 OPINION
Mugabe's power ploy
By Richard Dowden
July 26 2008
It is clear what Robert Mugabe wants to see from the talks with the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) that began in South Africa on Thursday. On December 27 1987 he sat down with Joshua Nkomo, the leader of the Zimbabwe African People's Union (Zapu) and signed a unity accord. It followed seven years of sustained violence against Nkomo's party in which some 18,000 people died.
The creation of a government of national unity made Nkomo vice-president. Three Zapu leaders were given cabinet posts. They might as well have been hamsters in a cage on Mugabe's desk.
This is what Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of the MDC, must remember as he sits down at the talks. Like Nkomo, his party has been battered, with many of his MPs dead, in hiding or facing charges, and more than 1,500 officials in prison.
The mediator, Thabo Mbeki, and other African presidents would be happy with a deal similar to the 1987 accord. But will the MDC be able to arm-wrestle a deal that leads to Mugabe stepping down or to free and fair elections - or even a joint Mugabe/Tsvangirai control of the state and its security apparatus? The question, as Humpty Dumpty said, is: who is to be master?
Much is being made of the Kenyan model forged earlier this year when the country exploded after a stolen election. Raila Odinga, who most neutral observers considered to have won, accepted the post of prime minister under Mwai Kibaki's presidency. But Kenya is different.
The security apparatus remained largely unengaged, if not neutral, in Kenya's violent January. Kibaki is no Mugabe, and Kenya's politicians are more cynical. In return for a slice of the power pie, they traded in their loyalty to principles and voters.
In Zimbabwe everyone in the power structure has been appointed by Mugabe, all are loyal members of Zanu-PF. Several of the military and security bosses have pledged their refusal to allow Tsvangirai to come to power. Their "right to rule" comes not solely from their "conquest" of the country by war against white rule, it is also because many Zimbabweans voted for them.
In the March parliamentary elections, Zanu-PF gained more votes than Tsvangirai's MDC. Even discounting rigging and bullying, the unpalatable fact is that there is still popular support for Mugabe and those around him.
Is it conceivable that some time in the near future - two weeks to complete the talks is an unlikely deadline - prime minister Tsvangirai will say to Emerson Mnangagwa, the man who organised the reign of terror since the March election, that it is time to retire? Could he tell General Philip Sibanda that he is no longer head of the army?
Miracles of reconciliation, peace and power-sharing have happened before in Africa but this is not credible. Mugabe and his cronies have allowed the country to be destroyed in order to hold on to power. Talks, for Mugabe, are not about reaching a compromise, they are a time-wasting ploy while he prepares for more war, or a tool for retaining - even extending - power.
What strengths does Tsvangirai have? The support of millions of Zimbabweans and a stubbornness that the flaky Nkomo lacked. Support from western countries is a double-edged sword. They provide financial, technical and diplomatic support but they also give Mugabe a cause - anti-imperialism – to unite his allies. And their power is waning.
The Chinese and Russian veto of the American UN security council resolution calling for sanctions against Mugabe last week marked the full stop at the end of the west's exclusive post cold war domination of Africa. They cannot rescue Zimbabwe.
Much weight was put on the rest of Africa in sorting out Zimbabwe but the African Union ducked its responsibilities at its summit in Egypt last month and passed the buck back to Mbeki. His power as president of South Africa is ebbing daily.
The African National Congress, now dominated by allies of Jacob Zuma, is removing Mbeki's allies from positions of power and is setting up a parallel ANC negotiation. In the next few months we may see South Africa begin to take the Zimbabwe crisis seriously.
But can Zimbabwe's economy wait? It is sliding quickly into subsistence and starvation with guns and mobiles. There are no buffers, just endless decline. Tsvangirai knows that confidence and financial support will not return without his say-so. But the ruling elite are not troubled. Some make good money out of Zimbabwe's ruin.
They are shifting their money overseas; sending the Zimbabwe dollar on down. They can always bring a little foreign exchange back and buy a few trillion dollars to pay servants and purchase food and black-market fuel. The only question is how long the government can produce money to pay its troops, police and thugs?
For different reasons, both sides may play for time. At present whatever moral and political strength Tsvangirai has, Mugabe is in power. Unless something inside Zanu-PF happens to unseat him, the battle for democratic change in Zimbabwe is far from over.
*Richard Dowden is director of the Royal African Society. His book: Africa Altered States, Ordinary Miracles is published in September
|
|
|
|
| OPINIONS - OPINION |
|
 UK’s cruel snub to exiled Zimbabweans
By John Sentamu, Archbishop of York
July 13, 2008
We pass them on the streets and sit by them on the bus, but most of us are unaware that across Britain today are thousands of people who have fled Zimbabwe because of the brutal atrocities of Robert Mugabe's regime.
Those Zimbabweans who have come to Britain are among millions who have fled their country in fear of their life and who dare not return. They are doctors and teachers, farmers and businessmen.
They are people who want to work, who want to restore some dignity to their families, who want to return home when Mugabe - as he surely will be – is finally kicked out of office.
I know of one teacher who has been here for four years, living hand to mouth, thanks to the charity of church communities. When he applied for
asylum he was turned down because nobody believed things were as bad as he claimed.
Today, while we now see he was telling the truth, he is in limbo, neither able to return home nor to make a home here. For at least 50 others it is even worse, they are in detention - one has been incarcerated for two years. This threatens to make our government's protestations about conditions in Zimbabwe sound hollow.
Russia and China have now vetoed United Nations sanctions against Zimbabwe, and the African Union must act to ensure that a new imperialism from such countries doesn't exploit the situation in Zimbabwe. And while I applaud Gordon Brown for keeping up the pressure in the international community to isolate the Mugabe regime and end the abuses of its people, there is a saying that "he who comes to court must come with clean hands".
If Britain calls for sanctions against Zimbabwe, which I support, it must at the same time do right by those Zimbabweans who have fled to this country. What kind of humanity is it that says, grudgingly, you can stay here if it's impossible to return home, but you must lose your dignity? You may be skilled, willing and energetic, but you must do nothing. Why should exiled Zimbabweans be compelled to twiddle their thumbs when they could be contributing to Britain by being allowed to work?
"Cowardice asks the question, 'Is it safe?' " said Martin Luther King. "Expediency asks the question, 'Is it politic?' Vanity asks the question, 'Is it popular?' But conscience asks the question, 'Is it right?' " Acting to restore the dignity of exiled Zimbabweans may not be politic or popular but it is the right thing to do.
Of course we must distinguish between criminals who have fled here – and must be deported - and those who have exhausted the asylum system. We should give those people a year and a day's leave to stay, so that they can escape this dehumanising limbo, find education and employment, and prepare to return on the day that Mugabe is gone.
When Ian Smith declared independence for Rhodesia in 1965, I was a student attending a church conference with Yoweri Museveni, who today is president of Uganda. We were outraged at what Smith had done and Museveni went to see the leader of the conference, saying we must protest. He was told that this is not what Christianity was about, we were there to learn about Jesus and the Bible.
Museveni said if we could not protest, then we were leaving, so three of us left. I have been working for the freedom of the people of that country ever since, the breadbasket of Africa which Mugabe has turned into a basket case.
It is sickening to watch Zimbabwean judges refusing to hear Morgan Tsvangirai's case that the elections have been rigged, when they know
perfectly well they were. To see Mugabe taking an oath of office while holding the Bible is little short of blasphemous. But if this is corrupt religion, there are many courageous people of faith in that country who have not come under Mugabe's spell. Some are bishops who will be here soon for the Lambeth conference of the Anglican communion.
The media will inevitably focus on divisions around human sexuality but most of our time will be spent discussing global justice for the poorest countries, the environmental crisis and how people of different faith traditions relate to each other. These bishops represent thousands of unsung heroes and heroines in Christian communities around the world who are working for justice every day, often at great personal risk. They believe, as I do, that justice will come to Zimbabwe too.
Mugabe was right when he said that only God could remove him. No tyrant lives for ever. No cruel regime lasts. God puts down the mighty from their seat and raises up the humble and meek. And he uses ordinary people to do this.
Mugabe will not last. I vividly remember another tyrant, Idi Amin. He butchered many of my fellow citizens but is long gone and Uganda is on
course to a peaceful future. That will happen for Zimbabwe too.
In the meantime we in Britain must ensure no Zimbabwean is destitute on our streets, must provide them with dignity until they can return home. Jesus never called the Samaritan "good", that was just what he became known as later. But now is the time for Britain to become a good Samaritan to the people of Zimbabwe. For anyone who is in need is my neighbour.
*Ugandan born, John Sentamu, is the Archbishop of York, in the UK
|
|
|
|
| OPINIONS - OPINION |
|
 We will reject GNU rooted in genocide - Mutambara
By Arthur G.O. Mutambara
19 June 2008
Robert Mugabe's political strategy in Zimbabwe is very clear. He wants to win the Presidential run-off on the 27th of June 2008 by any means necessary, and at any cost. The brutality of the methods and tactics being employed has been extensively documented.
The key elements include political violence, intimidation of opponents, displacement of voters, elimination and harassment of polling agents and party campaigners, and arbitrary arrests and incarceration of political leaders.
There is electoral cleansing taking place in Zimbabwe. Opposition activists, members of civic society and ordinary citizens have borne the terrible brunt of this brutality.
Mugabe strategy
After winning the run-off, Mugabe will not only control the Presidency, but the Senate as well. According to Section 33 of the Zimbabwean Constitution the institution of Parliament consists of two structures, the Senate and the House of Assembly. The two MDC formations working together hold the majority in the House of Assembly with 109 seats versus 97 belonging to ZANU-PF, which is now the new opposition.
In the Senate, the combined MDC strength is equal to that of ZANU-PF at 30 seats each. Hence, of the total 270 elected seats in both the House of Assembly and Senate, the two MDC formations have a 12 seat majority over ZANU-PF. In this regard, they hold claim to the moral authority of representing the will of the people.
However, in addition to the 60 elected Senators, the Zimbabwean constitution gives the person elected as President the power to appoint up to 33 members of the Senate: 10 Provincial Governors, 18 Chiefs, and 5 extra Senators. It is clear therefore that the balance of power in the combined Parliamentary institution consisting of the Senate and the House of Assembly depends on who is elected as President. If Mugabe wins, ZANU-PF will overturn MDC's elected majority.
In addition to controlling the Presidency, ZANU-PF will effectively control the Senate with 63 legislators against the combined MDC strength of 30. The ZANU-PF majority of 33 in the Senate will wipe out the MDC's majority of 12 in the House of Assembly. This is why Mugabe is obsessed with winning this Presidential run-off come hell, come sunshine.
From this position of strength, ZANU-PF and Mugabe will then want to engage the opposition as weak junior partners, even though the MDC collectively enjoys majority support of the electorate. They will not negotiate now, before the run-off, because they are in a much weaker position. They lost their parliamentary majority and Mugabe came second in the 29th March 2008 harmonized elections.
The bargaining power obtained from winning the run-off is so critical to them. With this victory, they might even dangle a Mugabe departure, where his successor from ZANU-PF is elected national President by a joint sitting of the House of Assembly and Senate in which they will have a majority of 21. The Mugabe exit will be meant to pacify those in the international community who view Mugabe as the symbol and personification of the Zimbabwean crisis. This is the ZANU-PF political strategy.
The parliamentary succession is provided for by Amendment 18 to the Zimbabwean Constitution. This is why individuals who are keen to succeed Mugabe through this arrangement are orchestrating his violent re-election. While they are trying to protect themselves from prosecution for corruption, human rights violations and crimes against humanity, they are also driven by unbridled ambition and self interest. Unfortunately they are compounding their risk as they pursue the retention of power at any cost.
It is abundantly clear that there are efforts to steal the Presidential run-off by any means necessary. Mugabe has already threatened war in the event of his electoral defeat. The challenge is what are we going to do if Mugabe and ZANU-PF impose themselves on the people of Zimbabwe? What is the appropriate response to the ZANU-PF strategy by Zimbabweans, Africans and the international community?
If Mugabe, whom we charge with committing violations of human rights in pursuit of political power, cannot ensure a free and fair election, SADC, AU and the international community must hold him accountable. The winner of an unfair and unfree election must be under no illusions with respect to the implications of such criminal conduct.
Those that govern must do so with the consent of the governed. The will of the people must be sovereign. Consequently, the victor in a fraudulent vote will neither have the legitimacy to govern, nor receive recognition internally or externally. There should be neither recognition nor support from SADC, AU and the international community for such a criminal and failed State. More importantly we, as the Zimbabwean opposition, will not recognize a national leadership produced by a fraudulent process.
We will not enter into any negotiations with such an illegal regime. There will be absolutely
no compromise, retreat or surrender on this position. No one should force the Zimbabwean political parties, who won a majority of the votes in the 29th March 2008 elections, into negotiations with an illegitimate ruler. We hope that Mbeki and other African leaders are listening carefully and understand our disposition clearly. We mean what we are saying, and we will walk the talk.
SADC, AU and the international community should not even contemplate coming to us after the almost certain fraud on the 27th of June 2008. There will be no engagement with an illegal government. We will not give legitimacy and dignity to the illegal regime by seeking an accommodation with them. They will run the country on their own. They will have to salvage the collapsed economy on their own. Zimbabweans will not accept a government of national unity (GNU) rooted in illegitimacy and accomplished through genocide.
The international community, AU, SADC and SA must understand this without equivocation or ambiguity. The Zimbabwean opposition will never be part of such a shameless betrayal of values and principles. What we believe in is an inclusive government based on a free and fair poll. Nothing else is acceptable.
SADC, the AU and the UN must clearly indicate and explain to the Mugabe regime the consequences of a stolen election, as outlined above. The key message should be that there will be neither recognition nor support. There will be total isolation. This communication must be done both privately and publicly. The personal liability, with respect to national and international laws, of individuals who are directing and executing the violence in Zimbabwe should be clearly articulated.
When all is said and done, Zimbabweans shall be masters of their own destiny. We cannot outsource the management of our public affairs to foreigners. We must close ranks in this darkest hour. The pursuit of a peaceful, prosperous and democratic Zimbabwe requires the involvement and commitment of every citizen.
The starting point is working together to ensure that the outcome of the upcoming election is accepted by all Zimbabweans, both winners and losers. Clarity about the meaning of, and the response options to, a stolen election is imperative. History will never absolve us if we equivocate and prevaricate. The outside world can only help us help ourselves.
The Struggle Must Continue.
*Arthur G.O. Mutambara is the president of the other faction of the Movement for Democratic Change. The other faction is led by MOrgani Tsangirai
|
|
|
|
| OPINIONS - OPINION |
|
 Mugabe gearing up to steal the election
By Douglas Alexander
08 June 2008
I BELIEVE there is a duty for the strong to help the weak; that to walk by on the other side is just not an option. Thankfully, after 10 years in which development and the alleviation of poverty have been at the heart of the British government's agenda, nobody can accuse the people of this country of that crime.
And yet Robert Mugabe, having dragged his country down into the slough of poverty and deprivation, is compounding this. His people are suffering. The international community stands ready to help and indeed has been helping. And now, having abused and impoverished his fellow Zimbabweans, he is blocking the help they so desperately need. Having tried to crush his people he is now denying them a cure.
Up to four million people in Zimbabwe rely on food aid supplied by international aid agencies. By ordering those agencies to suspend their operations, Mugabe is putting lives at risk. He is, quite simply, using hunger as a political weapon as he tries desperately to cling to power. This deliberate decision to target the poorest and most vulnerable people is beyond contempt.
All this comes at the end of the week when Mugabe had the effrontery to try to lecture world leaders at the international food summit in Rome. I travelled back to Glasgow this weekend from that meeting and talks in Cape Town with the South African finance minister, Trevor Manuel, and the president of the ANC Jacob Zuma. In my discussions I stressed the need for aid agencies to be allowed free and unfettered access to the people most in need.
The truth is that, despite his claims in Rome, Mugabe's ruinous land reforms have brought Zimbabwe to its knees and left his people in desperate straits. Once the breadbasket of southern Africa, the fertile soil of Zimbabwe now lies fallow, untended and unfarmed.
Mugabe blames the collapse of agriculture on Britain, the old colonial power. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Department of International Development spent £40m on humanitarian aid last year - bypassing the abhorrent regime to deliver help to the people.
Most international aid is delivered by non-governmental organisations, such as Oxfam and Save the Children. But, in past weeks, the security forces have made it nearly impossible for the aid agencies to do their job. The reason is simple: if Mugabe can limit the access of foreigners to large swathes of the country, he can also limit the information reaching the outside world.
That would mean the appalling violence and intimidation which is scarring preparations for the run-off in the presidential elections could carry on without fear of consequences. The suspension of aid is a deliberate political strategy. At the same time, opposition activists are being beaten up and Mugabe's opponent Morgan Tsvangirai faces constant harassment.
British and US diplomats trying to check reports of intimidation were this week blocked from doing their work.
No wonder the Zimbabwean government has still not said it will let independent observers monitor the long delayed final phase of the elections. The game plan is obvious: Mugabe and his henchmen are gearing up to try to steal the election. No amount of recounts could change the result of the first round voting. That left the opposition Movement for Democratic Change as the biggest party and gave Tsvangirai a clear lead over Mugabe.
The result clearly stunned Zanu-PF, which has governed since independence in 1980. But its hardline leadership was not ready to release its hold on power.
Over the coming weeks the crisis is likely to get worse. If Mugabe wins the run-off, I fear for the future of his people. They are the real victims of his despicable political manoeuvring. In the coming days, Britain and the international community will continue to do all we can to keep aid flowing.
We will work with our partners in the EU and the UN to ramp up the pressure on the regime to allow the aid agencies to feed the hungry. We will continue to press for international observers to be permitted to monitor the elections and we will continue to encourage the efforts by neighbouring countries to seek a solution to this crisis.
As he has become more despotic, Mugabe has shown even greater disregard for his citizens. It doesn't have to be this way.
We in this country and the international community are not walking by on the other side - yet Mugabe seeks to push us aside. Our aid is not for him, but for the Zimbabweans he makes suffer. But he will find our path is straight and our resolve will not be deflected.
Douglas Alexander is the UK's International Development Secretary
|
|
|
|
| OPINIONS - OPINION |
|
 South Africa 2008: Xenophobia unpacked
By Mutumwa Mawere
23 May 2008
The celebration of Africa Day provides yet another opportunity to reflect on what it means to be an African and for whom is the continent intended to serve.
South Africa is the youngest country in Africa and yet it has only taken 14 years to expose the extent to which the notion of African citizenship is contestable and perishable.
When one thinks of who is truly a South African, the answer is complex reflecting the historical, psychological and cultural dimensions of the matter.
A white person from Poland, for example, is readily assimilated into the South African society than a Mozambican born black African.
The recent black on black violence in South Africa may ultimately be a symptom of a deep seated problem that may have its roots in the foundation of the colonial and apartheid state. At the core of the apartheid state was the proposition that civilization had a racial context and content to the extent that a black person’s contribution to nation building was marginalized.
Accepting this proposition necessarily creates real and devastating consequences for black Africans who may be as adventurous as their white colleagues to cross borders and sell their services in countries that the colonial system did not define as their authentic home.
In terms of migration of black Africans the post colonial experience has not elevated their status and standing to the extent that xenophobia becomes a real and significant threat to the creation of a United States of Africa.
Who is an African? It may at face value be a simple question but it is at the core of the dispute in South Africa whose relevance is not restricted to South Africa. South Africa is not the first country in Africa to expose its violence against black born in sister African countries. But what makes the current situation in South Africa important is that the country is too important economically and politically in advancing the African project for anyone to ignore the implications arising from the black on black violence.
To date in South Africa the only violence targeted at whites has been largely defined as criminality and hence the elevation of crime as one of the single most important variable in contemporary South Africa.
The migration of black Africans to South Africa is not accidental as was the migration of white people from Europe. Whereas Europeans are generally perceived to add value to nation building their black counterparts are largely regarded as parasites.
South Africa has provided an African home to many prominent Africans who would otherwise have been domiciled in traditional destinations for diaspora Africans i.e. Europe, Australian and the Americas.
It is not in dispute that such Africans have brought with them capital, skills and experience. Furthermore, they do contribute to the fiscus for the debate on xenophobia to be misconstrued as if blacks have not added value to the success of the post apartheid state.
The history of South Africa and the peculiar role of black South Africans in it have created a distorted and dualistic economic structure whereby black skills were not developed deliberately to create a permanent need for white skills.
It has been recognized that for South Africa to grow, it requires an infusion of skills and yet a logic seems to have developed that such skills should not be in the form of fellow black Africans.
Although the post colonial Zimbabwean experience has produced an absurd outcome it cannot be denied that valuable skills needed for any country in South Africa’s condition have been created at great social and economic cost. Such skills are universally portable and it is not surprising that South Africa has been the major beneficiary.
What is significant is that notwithstanding the 3 million Zimbabweans living and working in South Africa, no attempt has been made to organize such a constituency into a political force in the country in as much as the Jews, for example, in America have organized themselves.
About 20% of the Zimbabwean population has its roots from South Africa in as much as a significant proportion of the South African population has its roots from other African nations. If the ugly face of xenophobia demonstrated so far in South Africa is allowed to take root, it poses a threat to many South African businesses that have targeted the rest of the continent as a market for growth.
If South African mining, commercial and industrial groups who have the luxury of exporting their skills are then prevented from doing so as a reaction to xenophobia, I have no doubt that this will not be in the interests of South Africa.
The apartheid system had its own rational in terms of the living arrangements between blacks and whites. It was and still remains unthinkable for black and white people to live together in the same townships. The distance between large black townships and white suburbs shows the extent to which whites were aware of the potential danger of living close to blacks and thereby expose poor blacks to the extent of their economic gains and affluence.
What seems to be a problem is that most of the black immigrants have no system in place to allow them to choose where they can live and as such they are easy prey to their local black citizens.
What makes the xenophobia issue so complex is that we still have black African Presidents who argue that their country’s resources must be reserved for indigenous nationals? If this argument is accepted then the seeds of xenophobia must be rightly located in the reckless language of African politicians.
It is also significant to note that even in the case of South Africa if there were no Zimbabweans taking the few jobs such jobs would be available to blacks and not given to other foreigners.
The post colonial experience has further exposed the hypocrisy of African political economy in that non-black foreigners are readily embraced to exploit natural resources while blacks are targeted and in many cases externalized.
Who owns Africa’s resources? I am confident that if the real construction of Africa’s wealth was known the nature and context of xenophobia would take a different tone.
English people in South Africa created Old Mutual in 1845 and the Afrikaners got angry and created their own Sanlam but in post colonial Africa, we still have to witness the positive anger of black Africans and may be one day in our lifetime we will see the emergence of an inclusive black mutual.
*Mutumwa Mawere is a businnessman who lives in South Africa.
|
|
|
|
| OPINIONS - OPINION |
|
 Democracy is not a privilege
By Pallo Jordan
19 May 2008
In the ANC's continuing interaction with the political parties in Zimbabwe, we have warned against the subversion the rule of law as we have about the heightening of tension.
We have also warned against the temptations of recklessness that could easily precipitate armed conflict. We have consistently appealed to the values and norms that the national liberation movement in Zimbabwe waged struggle to attain - the values of democracy; accountable government; the rule of law; an independent judiciary; non-racialism; political tolerance and freedom of the media.
Not a single one of these values was observed under British colonial rule, let alone under the UDI regime of Ian Smith and his cronies. We consider it a scandal that they are now being undermined by the movement that struggled to achieve them.
Consequently I was deeply shocked, if not alarmed, by an article on Zimbabwe from the pens of Eddie Maloka and Ben Magubane carried in City Press on Sunday 4 May 2008.
I was shocked by the suggestion of the two authors that the criteria we normally employ in judging the behaviour of governments are extremely flexible and are so malleable that what we judge as criminal in one instance we should find quite acceptable, even defensible, in another.
I thought it was common cause, within the ranks the ANC that the legitimacy of a government derives from the mandate it receives from the people. That mandate is usually expressed through free and fair general elections. What is more, we have also insisted that these are principles applicable to all countries, including Zimbabwe.
Anyone familiar with the history of European colonialism in Africa and Asia knows that at the core of the colonialist project was seizure and control over the natural resources of the colony. In the white settler colonies of Africa, like Kenya, Zimbabwe and Namibia, seizure of the land was invariably the means of acquiring such control. The reproduction of the long quotations from The Guardian in the City Press article thus serves no other purpose but to remind the forgetful of that reality. But, the information they contain adds neither light nor weight to the principal thrust of the two authors' line of argument.
Underlying the line of argument which the two authors advance is the suggestion that since the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) came into existence after independence, that political formation is necessarily suspect. They try to buttress this by suggesting that given that, like Britain, the revanchist "Rhodesian" whites, the USA and the European Union, the MDC is not happy with the ZANU (PF) government, there is an indissoluble link amongst them and they all must be pursuing the same agenda.
Proceeding from these highly flawed premises, they go on to argue that it is therefore incumbent on anti-imperialists to support ZANU (PF). There are disturbing parallels between these two writers' line of argument and the all too familiar ones emanating from former US Presidents like Teddy Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan and, in our day, George W Bush. Step back a little, invert the names, and the line of reasoning can be seen for what it is.
Justifying unqualified US support for right wing dictators in Latin America, Teddy Roosevelt declared:" Somoza (the former banana-republic dictator of Nicaragua) is a bastard, but he is our bastard!" The authors also deploy the same guilt by association, so loved by anti-Communists and other rightists when they repress dissent. Virtually echoing the sentiments of Senator Joe McCarthy: "If someone sounds like a duck, associates with ducks, and walks like a duck, can it be unfair to infer that he is a duck!"
But perhaps the most alarming suggestion of all is that opposition to ZANU (PF), irrespective of its merits, is ipso facto illegitimate and necessarily counter-revolutionary, and therefore pro-imperialist.
The questions we should be asking are: What has gone so radically wrong that the movement and the leaders who brought democracy to Zimbabwe today appear to be its ferocious violators. What has gone so wrong that they appear to be most fearful of it?
Maloka and Magubane brush such questions aside with a breathtaking recklessness. To invoke the memory of Patrice Lumumba in this context can only be an example of woolly thinking. Lumumba, let us remember, was democratically elected by the majority of the Congolese people. To subvert the will of the Congolese, as expressed in general elections, the imperialists stage-managed Mobutu's coup, kidnapped Lumumba and had his enemies murder him.
The same applies to Salvador Allende of Chile. The CIA subverted the expressed will of the Chilean people by staging a coup to overturn the democratically elected government of Chile.
Maloka and Magubane want us to ignore the will of the Zimbabwean people, as expressed in elections, and do what the imperialists did in Congo and Chile. Such action, they claim, would be anti-imperialist. In other words, we must behave like the imperialists to demonstrate our commitment to anti-imperialism.
Rather than raising and attempting to answer such tough questions, they skirt around them by marshalling a mixture of emotive arguments and outright political blackmail, again reminiscent of the far-right and its adherents. You are either with ZANU(PF) in the anti-imperialist camp, or against it (and therefore with Blair, Bush, the DA, etc).
If that has familiar ring, it is because the Bush administration has employed it repeatedly in support of its aggressive actions against all and sundry. To quote them: "You are either with us, or against us!"
It cannot possibly be right that, while we in South Africa expect our democratic institutions to protect us from arbitrary power, we expect the people of Zimbabwe to be content with less.
If ZANU (PF) has lost the confidence of a substantial number of the citizens of that country, such that the only means by which it can win elections is either by intimidating the people or otherwise rigging them, it has only itself to blame.
Nobody doubts the anti-imperialist credentials of ZANU (PF), but that cannot be sufficient reason to support it if it is misgoverning Zimbabwe and brutalising the people.
I do not support the MDC and my track record in the struggle against imperialism speaks for itself, but I differ most fundamentally with Maloka and Magubane. It is precisely my commitment to the anti-imperialist agenda that persuades me that our two comrades are wrong.
We will not assist ZANU (PF) by encouraging that movement to proceed along the disastrous course it has embarked on. Offering it uncritical support because it is anti-imperialist will not help ZANU (PF) to uncover the reasons for the steep decline in the legitimacy it once enjoyed. That party would do well to return to its original vision of a democratic Zimbabwe, free of colonial domination and the instruments of that domination - such as arbitrary arrests, police repression of opposition, intimidation of political critics, etc.
Given the outcome of the recent elections, ZANU(PF) should surrender power to the party that has won. Any attempt by ZANU (PF) to cling to power through overt or covert violence will only compound its problems by stripping it even further of the legitimacy it won by leading the Zimbabwean people in their struggle for independence, freedom and democracy!
*Pallo Jordan is a member of the ANC National Executive Committee (NEC). This article is written in his personal capacity.
|
|
|
|
| OPINIONS - OPINION |
|
 A rescue package for the stricken of Zimbabwe
By Michael Holman
April 2 2008
If bravery shaped reality, Zimbabwe would be starting a new era. In the face of thuggery and in defiance of years of state intimidation, the country’s opposition has swept the election board. But it would be premature to celebrate the political demise – and foolish to underestimate the resolve – of the 84-year-old Robert Mugabe, the man who has led Zimbabwe from independence in 1980 and who has since delivered it into the abyss.
In the days ahead we shall learn whether Zimbabwe is poised to return to democracy or whether it is in the throes of a slow-motion coup, as heavily manipulated “official” results are delivered to a disbelieving public, with the security forces ready to intervene.
It was always likely to be thus.
Hopes that Mr Mugabe would accept defeat at last Saturday’s poll have been fuelled by a form of wishful thinking that defies both human nature and political gravity. It seemed improbable that a man who has flouted democracy for so long would respect the verdict of the ballot box and that he would not contrive to rig the official outcome.
As the realisation sinks in that the president is likely to fight from his bunker rather than accept defeat, there will be the usual cries that “something must be done”. But what, precisely? Any talk of expanding the ineffectual targeted sanctions against the regime borders on the absurd: the country is already in a state of economic collapse. What is more, sanctions seldom work – as Rhodesia itself showed. It took a guerrilla war to secure its transition to Zimbabwe.
Others will call for military intervention. But who will take on the task? To suggest the African Union, unable to cope with Darfur, is risible. South Africa? Hazardous. Remember that President Thabo Mbeki and Mr Mugabe are not “comrades in arms” – their guerrillas fought each other during Zimbabwe’s liberation war and there are old scores to settle.
Furthermore, the record shows that interference in Africa, whether by outsiders or Africans, has usually been disastrous, whatever the motive – ideological (the US in Zaire, the Soviet Union in Ethiopia), humanitarian (the US in Somalia) or well-intentioned (Tanzania in Idi Amin’s Uganda).
So what can be done?
If you lack a stick, then use a carrot. As Zimbabweans prepare for a final heave, their bravery needs to be supplemented by hope: hope that stems from evidence that their future will be marked by a rapid improvement in their wretched circumstances.
Of course, long-term recovery measures must be decided by Zimbabweans themselves; but short-term relief can be assembled in days. Preparation should take the form of an emergency aid conference, convened irrespective of the outcome of the current crisis, ready to be implemented when democracy returns. Donors would be asked to make public commitments to funding or supplying Zimbabwe’s desperate needs: fertiliser for agriculture, raw materials and spare parts for industry, medicines for clinics, fuel for transport.
On the agenda would also be ways to kick-start the country’s hard-hit tourist industry, once a leading foreign exchange earner and an important employer. Perhaps this could take the form of a one-off offer to foreign visitors of a holiday, at cost, in one of Zimbabwe’s many game parks.
Britain’s Department for International Development should invest the £30m (€38m) it has earmarked for an orderly land reform programme in a commercial farming centre, located on the Mozambique-Zimbabwe border, where dispossessed farmers might regroup to use their expertise.
Meanwhile, newspapers could lead an appeal for books; magazines and academic journals could provide free subscription to the country’s schools and universities and libraries.
This package of measures would be published and made available to every Zimbabwean, telling them what the future holds. Who better to co-ordinate the programme than the Commonwealth, that near-moribund association of 50-odd countries, linked by a history of association with Britain? It was a Commonwealth summit in Lusaka, Zambia’s capital, in 1979 that helped lay foundations for Zimbabwe’s independence elections the following year.
The organisation has allowed Zimbabwe to drop off its agenda, using Mr Mugabe’s withdrawal from membership in 2003 as an excuse for shameful neglect. Let the Commonwealth lead the exercise that could redeem its failure and offer help as well as hope to the brave people of Zimbabwe.
Two birds, one stone.
*Michael Holman is a journalist and writer who grew up in Zimbabwe, at a time when the country was still known as Rhodesia. He lives in London but still travels frequently to Africa and writes occasional columns for the FT and Times online. This article first appeared in the Financial Times.
|
|
|
|
| OPINIONS - OPINION |
|
 Why Makoni is the next president
By Ibbo Mandaza
28 March 2008
THE discerning analyst of an electoral process such as that underway in Zimbabwe needs to keep the eye on the ball, be wary of the media hype and the accompanying barrage of advertisements on the part of the well resourced ZANU-PF and the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC-Tsvangirai), and always remember that it is the numbers at the poll that will determine the outcome on Saturday.
A three-sided contest would have benefited Morgan Tsvangirai's second bid for the presidency. But, sadly, this is not to be. With (President) Robert Mugabe a rank outsider with four percent or less of the vote, the race is clearly between Tsvangirai and Makoni.
This is where the numbers game becomes central, especially if one understands that, beyond Harare Province, which is its traditional stronghold, the MDC (Tsvangirai) remains quite marginal elsewhere, even though it will have made inroads in the rural areas, thanks to the virtual collapse of ZANU-PF in the latter.
A careful analysis of the rural areas will reveal the extent to which voters therein have moved more easily from ZANU-PF to Makoni's Mavambo-Kusile-Dawn than to MDC (Tsvangirai).
This is also because the MDC had in the previous elections not been allowed a free rein by ZANU-PF and, understandably, many rural folk may not have known of Tsvangirai and his party until this late hour. Here is where Makoni appears to have cashed in on a rural population that is so enthralled by this energetic man, the genuine smile that has become almost the hallmark of his campaign, and the eloquence - in the mother tongue - with which he has delivered his message of hope and renewal.
Those who have seen and heard him know what I am writing about; and even if George Charamba and his people at Zimpapers and Zimbabwe Broadcasting Holdings have succeeded in sustaining a media blackout on Makoni's campaign, that will obviously not have mattered for most of a rural sector for whom The Herald /The Sunday Mail and ZBC are as scarce as maize-meal, salt and sugar. So, I would give Makoni at least 60 percent of the rural vote, which stands roughly at a total of four million voters.
Besides, my survey confirms in general that Makoni is ahead in the following provinces: Matabeleland North, Matabeleland South, Bulawayo, Midlands, Masvingo and Manicaland; and will also have benefited from the collapse of ZANU-PF in Mashonaland West, Mashonaland East and Mashonaland Central, even if Tsvangirai will also have made substantial inroads into these three provinces.
Of course, the media is a thing of the urban areas, so disproportionately exaggerated in terms of its outreach and influence, especially when the latter is presumed national and dominant. Not surprisingly, the pervasive impression that Morgan Tsvangirai is ahead of Makoni is based almost solely on Harare and the media hype - not to mention an advertising campaign the likes of which the urban areas have not experienced during previous elections - which magnifies a candidate beyond the reality that translates into numbers on polling day.
So, Makoni's star does appear eclipsed behind that barrage of Tsvangirai's advertising campaign, which his Mavambo-Kusile-Dawn could never match given the very limited resources at the latter's disposal. However, the new kid on the block should take at least 50 percent of the vote in Harare, 70 percent in Bulawayo, 60 percent in Gweru, 80 percent in Mutare, 50 percent in Masvingo, 80 percent in Chinhoyi, 50 percent in Marondera and 60 percent in Bindura.
To be modest, Makoni will at least share the urban vote (of roughly two million voters) with Tsvangirai; and considering that most of the business and professional classes - including those in the civil and uniformed services - are likely to view Makoni as a softer landing this time round, the Mavambo-Kusile-Dawn man might even have the edge over Tsvangirai in Harare province, which has a total of about 900 000 voters.
One could easily get carried away with numbers, a senseless exercise, perhaps, when election day is hardly two days away. All the same, this might help to temper both rampant speculation on the part of some and premature euphoria in other quarters. But the main purpose of this contribution is to highlight what I believe to be the qualities of the man who should succeed to the office of the President on March 29, as well as the historical and political circumstances, which favour Makoni's chances in this regard.
In another contribution last week, I made reference to Makoni's rare intellect, a gift, which has no doubt been the foundation of his professional accomplishments as both a chemist and industrialist; but also contributed to the development of those leadership qualities that have seen him become student leader in the early 1970's, a chief representative (in Western Europe) of the National Liberation Movement in the late 1970's and, at the age of 29, the youngest minister in Zimbabwe's post-independence Cabinet in 1980.
The four years spent in the formative and heady days of the new State will have provided him with enormous experience and exposure in the affairs of government and development policy, while also preparing him for the subsequent decade (1984-94) spent in international diplomacy, as the Executive Secretary of SADC in Gaborone, Botswana. With such experience and exposure to international affairs, Makoni should have found his place back in Cabinet when he returned home in late 1994.
But this was not to be, as everything was being done by the powers that were to keep him on the margins of the state, not least because it was during those days, and even earlier, that Makoni was being touted, at home and abroad, as a strong contender for the top post in the land. So, he was expediently shunted - and, perhaps, even cold-storaged – to Zimbabwe Newspapers as managing director, for two years during which the company did so well and yet, at the end of which, Makoni was unceremoniously given the boot.
There were largely political reasons behind this, some of which were no doubt linked to the perception, especially at the highest place in the land, that Makoni was increasingly being talked about as a possible successor to President Mugabe. However, this development compelled Makoni to turn to the private sector where he has been ever since, as both a thriving entrepreneur and farmer.Except for the two years (2000-2002) when he was called back as minister of finance, a position from which he bravely resigned when he could no longer work with President Mugabe. Indeed, he might have made a difference to the flagging Zimbabwean economy had he been afforded the opportunity by President Mugabe.
The 30 years of exposure to statecraft, international diplomacy and entrepreneurship, gives Makoni more than an edge over Tsvangirai. This is a consideration, which many a voter, in both the urban and rural areas, will not miss. Makoni is better equipped, in terms of leadership skills, to put together a Cabinet as part of the Government of National Unity that he has already espoused in his election manifesto; and knows more intimately what should be done and how best it will be effected in order to redeem Zimbabwe from the abyss in which (President) Mugabe and his government have left our Motherland.
|
|
|
|
| OPINIONS - OPINION |
|
 Makoni speaks about his presidential mission
March 24th 2008
I decided to run for Zimbabwe president in July 2007. It was after Robert Mugabe had announced in March - long before any of the processes required for a person to take leadership of the party had been set in motion - that he would lead the party into the next election.
It was then that I convinced myself we needed urgent renewal, and that I needed to do something to bring it about. I began a process of consultation with a wide cross-section of people within Zanu-PF and outside.
I went to Mugabe to tell him there was a growing desire for renewal among some of his party members, renewal of leadership in the party and in the country, and that there was a feeling this should come from within the party.
I was frank with him, and told him that I was prepared to stand as president. I also told him there were people who supported my decision to move in. He took note.
I won't be in this presidential campaign alone. There will be many more of us - a great many of us. But I am not standing in the name of any party; I am standing as an independent. I would have wanted to stand on a Zanu-PF ticket, but that opportunity was denied to any other cadre within the party.
I believe my chances in the elections are very good - overwhelming even. I am confident of beating Mugabe. Zimbabweans are going through such stress and tension because of the myriad economic problems in the country, such as poverty that affects more than 80% of the population, and rampant unemployment, especially among the young.
I urge all those who yearn for genuine renewal and improvement in our conditions - those who, like me, yearn for the restoration of a united nation, for genuine national reconciliation, for our proper place in the region and the global village - to come forward and participate in the forthcoming elections under our banner.
But let me also encourage those others in Zanu-PF who have been, and are still, working with us in this project for national renewal, to remain steadfast and not be intimidated. I don't feel threatened. My security is among the people.
Mugabe may have been elected at the December congress [the main agenda of which was to confirm his candidature for the presidency], but let me tell you this. When the full facts of the processes that led to that congress are made public, people will understand why this decision has been necessary. Questions will be asked of the legal secretary, the secretary for administration and the political commissar.
I am asked: "Where are your alleged Zanu-PF party supporters?" But what is this notion that people have, this belief that I was ever going to parade people in front of the cameras? My consultations were not only with people in the leadership of Zanu-PF but with all the people of Zimbabwe, at a grassroots level.
I have come out and said that Zimbabwe's crisis is the result of the failure of our national leadership, so I don't understand it when people still expect to see me parade in public members of this very same leadership, who are responsible for these same failures. Wouldn't that be a contradiction?
I have stood for hours in cash queues with ordinary people; I know first-hand the tribulations they suffer, standing out there for long periods of time just to withdraw a measely $5million. The people who matter most are the people who are going to come out on March 29 to deliver a verdict.
No Zanu-PF officials have approached me to launch this challenge. I am nobody's tool or agent. I had views of my own, that we were long overdue a change of leadership. And I found that there was some significant support for that change. I urge people not to be duped by the falsehood that I am a Zanu-PF ploy.
I am asked why I waited until July 2007 to challenge Mugabe when I had seen the rot set in long before. But if you look at the record of all my public pronouncements, during the years I served in government and since leaving government, you will realise what I have always been about.
I wanted to see a return to the original principles we held as a party at independence, when the president told us to turn our swords into
plough-shares and establish an equitable and prosperous society. Those values are still relevant now. It is just the leadership's deviation from those values that I'm seeking to reverse.
Until the last minute I continued in Zanu-PF working towards a return to those original values. I persevered only in the hope that there would be some renewal of our party. Zimbabwe's ruling party has a history, but it must also have a future.
Judging by the responses to my announcement to run for president, I do not anticipate anything short of a landslide. The enthusiasm is palpable.
I do not make any distinction between urban and rural constituencies. Why do we always want to categorize our people? Why do we herd them into paddocks? All of them are Zimbabweans, and all of them yearn for the same thing, which is an immediate renewal of our country. We should not create unnatural barriers.
I have been criticised for being vague on policy and strategy. But what I will not do is make high-sounding promises to the people of Zimbabwe. I want to emphasise this. I am not going to give them a reel of menus and recipes. What I am offering is an opportunity to make changes, and to have real empowerment.
I am not going to stand in front of the people and say: "I will build a road here, a house here, a dam there." I cannot make such promises. There are 14 million Zimbabweans, and what I am about is offering each one of them the chance to once again make the best out of their opportunities, a chance to realise their full potential.
Mugabe's government made many lofty promises, but it was a mistake to believe any of them would be delivered. My economic priority would be to get the land producing again. We could get all the fertiliser from China, India and so on, but the task would be to get our own Zimbabwean companies going again. Manufacturing capacity is down, primarily because companies cannot source raw materials. There will be a need for technological overhaul in our industry, and we will need to recapitalise our factories.
The most important thing is to get our people re-engaged, and to restore their confidence, such that there will be no need for a parallel market, or the need to pretend there is a formal market when one no longer exists. This economy can still be turned around.
|
|
|
|
| OPINIONS - OPINION |
|
 Simba Makoni has demonstrated he is genuine
By David Coltart
I have read the letter published in the Cape Argus on the 17th February 2008 written by my friend and colleague Roy Bennett in which he accused Zimbabwean Presidential candidate Simba Makoni of complicity in various crimes against humanity perpetrated by the Mugabe regime because of his
association with Zanu PF.
Both Roy Bennett and I served in the BSAP, the Rhodesian Police force, in the 1970s during the civil war fought by ZANLA and ZIPRA against the Rhodesian Front government. Whilst there were undoubtedly atrocities committed by the guerrilla armies, the BSAP played a major role in maintaining white minority rule and during the course of the war torture was also systematically used by the BSAP against captured guerrillas and their supporters.
Despite the fact that we served in the BSAP, we were both elected to Parliament in 2000 by an overwhelmingly black electorate who were prepared to forgive us for the fact that we were members of an institution which had prolonged white minority rule and the oppression of black people. I have always been humbled by the deep reservoir of forgiveness and goodwill shown towards me by black Zimbabweans, who were prepared to look beyond my past and who were prepared to judge me on my more recent record.
Likewise the miracle that unfolded in South Africa in the early 1990s occurred because Nelson Mandela and the ANC were prepared to forgive the National Party and leaders like F.W. De Klerk for their role in apartheid.
Much of that spirit of forgiveness stemmed from the fact that Mr de Klerk was prepared to humble himself by giving up the trappings of power and to turn away from the evil past of apartheid. The combination of the spirit of forgiveness, on the one hand, and the turning away from evil, on the other, contributed greatly to the healing that took place in South Africa in the 1990s.
Zimbabwe is in a similar place of distress as South Africa was in 1990. Our problems are so grave and seemingly intractable that we will not be able to save our land unless all responsible and patriotic Zimbabweans display a similar spirit of forgiveness and turning away from evil.
It is in that context that Roy Bennett's attack on Simba Makoni is so unfortunate. He accuses Makoni of being complicit in the Gukurahundi genocide, the Murambatsvina atrocity and other human rights violations, through his silence. He blames Makoni for the fact that he is unable to return from exile and for the fact that SADC norms and conditions have not been implemented in Zimbabwe.
What is undeniable is that Simba Makoni has been in Zanu PF since independence but that alone does not make him complicit. In my capacity as Director of the Bulawayo Legal Projects Centre in the 1980s and 1990s I played a leading role in the investigation and reporting of the Gukurahundi genocide which culminated in the publication in 1997 of the report "Breaking the Silence" by our parent organisation the Legal Resources Foundation.
Simba Makoni was never implicated in the Gukurahundi. Indeed our investigations revealed that it was perpetrated by a relatively small cabal around Robert Mugabe. Many even in the military itself did not know exactly what was planned and what happened.
As regards Murambatsvina the facts are that Makoni resigned, in an unprecedented and brave act, from cabinet in 2002, well before Murambatsvina took place. We also know that the reason he resigned was because he disagreed with a host of Zanu PF policies. We also know that he has fought a lone battle within the Politburo trying to reform Zanu PF from within. In the past year he has spoken out publicly against Zanu PF's abuses including the shocking torture of Morgan Tsvangirai and other opposition leaders in March last year.
We may criticise him for staying within Zanu PF for so long but it is an unjustified cut to say that he has agreed with all that has happened in Zimbabwe since independence.
Even if I am wrong in my assessment of Makoni's past, what we know for certain now is that he has broken from Zanu PF in an astonishingly brave move. His manifesto indicates that he stands for the right things, including national reconciliation and a new democratic constitution.
In my view this courageous move should be supported, not criticised. Now is the time for us all to display the same degree of forgiveness afforded Roy Bennett and me by black Zimbabweans. The quid pro quo is that Simba Makoni must show that this is a genuine turning away from Zanu PF's evil past – but I think he has already demonstrated that through his actions and words of the last few weeks.
Now is also the time for all patriotic Zimbabweans to work together to bring Robert Mugabe's ruinous and brutal dictatorship to an end.
*David Coltart is a member of Parliament in Zimbabwe, for the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC). He has been a human rights lawyer in Zimbabwe since his return to the country in 1983.
|
|
|
|
| OPINIONS - OPINION |
|
 Cry the beloved Zimbabwe
By Netsai Matambanadzo
28 February 2008
Throw a stone in Lagos and you are bound to hit a graduate, but throw a stone in Zimbabwe and you are guaranteed to hit a millionaire – a jobless millionaire or even a homeless millionaire, for that matter. We have become an object of ridicule. Imagine a country with all those millions floating around and not a single one of them is worth a dime. Is that not ironic?
What really happened in Zimbabwe one might ask? This is a rhetorical question. The answer is simple: we have allowed an impenitent liberation movement masquerading as a political party and led by a callous and narcissistic man to run the country for far too long.
Zimbabwe should be one of the richest countries in Africa. We have natural resources in abundance, which could generate considerable income for the country if investors were comfortable with the country’s political stability and investment climate. And we could also generate a lot of foreign currency from the tourism sector, if tourists didn’t have any misgivings about what is going on in Zimbabwe. Ironically, our economy, which in the late 1950s was bigger than that of rich countries in the Far East, including Singapore, continues on a downhill path to self-destruction. Are we just going to sit down and watch?
The future is bleak at the moment. But could Simba Makoni be a revolutionary? His emergence as an independent candidate has caused a stir and is very much still under scrutiny. One may ask: - Could it be one of Mugabe’s tactics - to divide and conquer? A massive shift in votes on the MDC side is a certainty as voters who are already confused [by the split] could vote in Makoni. It may also be that Makoni has made his millions, built an empire and is now embarrassed to be aligned to the tyrant.
Some observers have stated that Makoni’s emergence a couple of months before the March 2008 elections is a carefully choreographed charade used to distract Zimbabweans from achieving the goal of better governance.
Either way, I think Tsvangirai and Makoni should put their heads together to form a coalition, do a bit of horse-trading and fight the elections on a common platform – a la Pakistan. Slobodan Milosevic was forced out of power by the people of the Kosovo but we have nothing like the resolve of the Albanians.
It is not that my compatriots lack what it takes to sweep a tyrant out of power. The fact of the matter is that the post-independence years which ushered in the passing of colonialism and imperialism culled our people into euphoria and a mistaken sense of security much especially as this phase came to be marked with economic prosperity and our people were not expecting this sudden shift to political depression. Mugabe has sprung an element of surprise upon us but our people are being galvanised into action.
The struggle is proving hard and arduous but we shall continue to resist. I do not expect Zimbabweans who are living in exile in South Africa, America and across much of Europe to turn in propaganda for the repressive structure that our octogenarian tyrant has erected in the country. Are they not witnessing the downward spiral of once vibrant economy? Are they blind to the large pool of professional men and women who have deserted our beloved land to labour a pittance in foreign land? Have they not heard how the helpless rural folk, townsmen and women who are being compelled into voting for ZANU PF?
Surprisingly, whenever there is a conference on Zimbabwe in London, a small group of Zimbabwean men who have made it their business to strut round European capitals shelling out Mugabe’s propaganda, on why the country is failing, turn up and hail themselves to be the die-hards of Zanu-pf. One wonders why these self-proclaimed and paid agents of the Mugabe regime do not go back home to enjoy the loot in company of their Master! Can these conscienceless agents not see that Mugabe has turned our beloved fatherland into a prison house?
On a different note, I wish to relay an exhortation to the resident and youth of Zimbabwe to remember that your mobile phones and daily perks if you are a ZANU PF supporter are not going to bring you ultimate freedom and dignity.
Wake up you the Youth of Zimbabwe - whether you are living in and outside the country! I know your voices and protestations are being muzzled by the tyrant’s henchmen and secret police. But do not give up. I can see hope on the horizon. Cry out for your country. Do not be afraid. You may not be ready to embrace martyrdom but already a sizable number of our people have already been brutalised if not martyred.
The time is now people of Zimbabwe. We have suffered enough at the hands of these greedy, and ruthless politicians who continue to live lavishly at our expense.
Mugabe is a selfish geriatric very close to the brink of insanity and has a flagrant disregard for the rise of his people. He needs to pass over the mantle to a fresh stalwart who can guide Zimbabwe into a new dispensation to use a Christian analogy. Can we get our passing tyrant to adopt the 4 ‘As’ strategy as defined in one of my favourite songs (Forever Begins by Common)?
“…confusion: need a solution? Blend and stir, stir and blend the pot of humanity, sift the ingredients of acknowledgement, apology, amendment, atonement”.
Mugabe should acknowledge that he has failed his people. Mugabe should apologise for his blatant disregard for human rights. Mugabe should express remorse for the Gukurahundi atrocities. Still he claims affinity with the Christian tradition. Could he honestly engage in penitence and atonement for his deeds - restitution to be given and the injured party be made whole.
*Netsai Matambanadzo is a Zimbabwean student currently based in London, UK. She can be contacted on her email: nadah22000@yahoo.com
|
|
|
|
| OPINIONS - OPINION |
|
 What fate awaits Zimbabwe at the ballot box?
By Brian Moyo – Editor Touch Base Africa
23 February 2008
Sooner or later, all nations discover that the people they have entrusted with the power to govern them have fallen short of the ideal. That in itself is a painful realisation. But in the case of Zimbabwe the lesson is made all the more painful by the fact that the ruling party, Zanu-Pf came into power in 1980, on the back of incredible national sacrifice. Even more regrettable is the notion that only one man had somehow won himself the divine right to rule the nation, come what may.
Zimbabwe is in the middle of a great national tragedy in which a whirlpool of every imaginable economic illness has become a daily nightmare.
This week, currency traders in Zimbabwe’s informal, but thriving market quoted the exchange rate at one British pound to 26 million Zimbabwean dollars. It’s anyone’s guess what they will quote on the day the country goes to the polls, but it is a safe bet that the pound will be worth much, much more than that.
Yet Mugabe was full of confidence when he spoke on Zimbabwe television on 21 February 2008, proudly proclaiming that he would trounce the opposition! Then in a moment of utter disrespect for Simba Makoni, one of his three rivals for the job of president, he proclaimed him to be worse than a prostitute!
Why? Is it because Makoni had the audacity to step outside Mugabe’s sphere of influence and declare himself an independent candidate? One wonders why Mugabe didn’t tell Zimbabweans that Makoni’s challenge doesn’t frighten him because Zanu-Pf has better policies than Makoni’s own manifesto.
The idea that, Makoni by choosing to disassociate himself with Mugabe in order to seek a fresh course action for the country, amounts to prostitution is probably the most tangible evidence there is that Mugabe knows that he has no new hope to offer the country after more than 28 years at the helm.
Misery has sculpted indelible lines on the faces of thousands of jobless youths, with university degrees in their pockets, and all we can hear from the president of a nation, no less, when challenged at the ballot box is to refer to his challenger as a prostitute!
Surely Zimbabwe is bigger than Zanu-Pf; which simply put, is not a national institution but a party of individuals who share common political principles.
Since Makoni obviously came to the conclusion that his own political view points and those of millions of disenchanted Zimbabweans are no longer represented by the serving President, he was at liberty to step out and offer to run for president independently.
Sensibly, Makoni has appealed to the Zimbabwean electorate to judge all candidates on “ideas” and avoid personalising the political debate. Other presidential candidates (Mugabe included) should do the same. Let Zimbabweans judge you by the manifesto you put on the table!
One suspects that whatever machinery Mugabe has put in place to ensure that he cruises to victory on the 29th of March, will have no bearing whatsoever with genuine votes cast at the ballot box. An election result should be the product of a positive plan by a society declaring freely by whom it wants to be governed; not a gigantic scam concocted by those who want to remain in office despite all evidence suggesting they don’t deserve to be in office.
No doubt, Mugabe will arrive at the polling station in a fleet of gleaming Mercedez Benzes, built in the western countries mind you, along with the noisy motor cycles blaring their sirens. His fleet of vehicles are only parked when not in use, but never because their tanks are empty of fuel as is the case with thousands of car owners in Zimbabwe.
Mugabe will, in all probability, be dressed in a Saville Row suit, or the equivalent of it when he casts his vote. And he is certain to have had a hefty meal in his palatial home, because as sure as the sun rises from the east and sets in the west, there is no shortage of food in his home.
On the other hand, the majority of Zimbabweans who will join the voting queues throughout the country will be jobless adults, who have become accustomed to meagre diets. Fact. Virtually every man and woman who will cast a vote on that day will have had some experience of queuing for basic commodities, such as sugar, cooking oil and bread. Fact.
Virtually every working man and woman in the country earns millions of dollars per month, but is poorer than they were 10 years ago. Fact.
Zimbabwe has known only one leader, since it attained independence from Britain in 1980, and his name is Robert Mugabe. Fact.
The lucky Zimbabweans still holding down jobs in the ever crumbling economy, will be acutely aware, as they approach the ballot box, that they are the personification of poor millionaires. Fact.
Yet we never hear anything said about how the country’s fortunes will be turned around by the ruling party. From president Mugabe, we constantly hear the pitiful lament about defying the political designs the USA and the UK have on Zimbabwe. Such underhand machinations may well exist, given the fact that the western world have always had more than a passing interest in what goes on in other parts of the world.
But whatever political designs the US and the UK have on Zimbabwe they have not been responsible for furnishing all government ministers and party loyalist with expensive Mercedez Benz the country can ill afford. Nor are the US and the UK responsible for giving farms to people who do not utilise them, thereby rendering the country’s once thriving agricultural sector null and void.
Neither has the USA and the UK done anything to foster the politics of patronage which rewards incompetent officials or been the authors of short sighted policies which have brought the country to its knees.
One could list a whole page of specific situations in which the daily trudge of life in Zimbabwe has reduced ordinary people to intolerable levels of desperation not experienced during Ian smith’s regime, which however have nothing to do with the USA and the UK.
For Mugabe to expect voters to ignore the reality around them and vote for him, simply because he swears that the country will never become a colony again, is to underestimate the intelligence of the people of this once great, and yet to be great again, country.
From where Mugabe is seated, the Zimbabwean public may seem to be passive, gullible, or both, and he may well perceive this attitude as an uncritical acceptance of his tyrannical rule. But he should take note that when people have been hemmed in by unjust laws and hostile law enforcement agents intolerant of opposition parties, they develop a thick skin and uncanny ways of hiding their hatred and resentment for their persecutor.
It would be a mistake for Mugabe to take the electorate for granted or to assume that the Zimbabwean public is blind to Zanu-Pf’s defects. When one lives in rueful contemplation of a ruthless dictator, one learns the value of being patient and not showing the true state of one’s mindset, until the time is right.
And Mugabe will do well to heed Satre’s observation that “men are powerless only when they admit they are.” I don’t believe for a moment that Zimbabweans, though weighed down by the economic hardships of the past 10 years, have given up the ghost.
Makoni’s emergence as a credible presidential candidate brings hope that change is inevitable, that a new political dispensation is in the offing; not withstanding all the underhand shenanigans he and his supporters will be subjected to.
Makoni’s crime is that he opted to speak candidly about the elephant in the room which no one else was brave enough to acknowledge. If by so doing, he has become a prostitute, I for one would recommend that all right thinking Zimbabweans take the time to queue outside his boudoir and see what he has to offer! When Zimbabweans cast their votes on 29 March, they should reflect on the saying that a live dog is superior to a dead lion!
|
|
|
|
| OPINIONS - OPINION |
|
 Zimbabwe 2008: Is the Bank of Hope and Change Empty?
By Mutumwa Mawere
10 February 2008
For the past 28 years, ZANU-PF has dominated Zimbabwean politics to the extent that many now associate change with the annihilation of the party while forgetting that any political party is nothing but an association of members with a common purpose.
I am not convinced that it can be argued convincingly that ZANU-PF was founded with the purpose of allowing one individual to monopolize political discourse and arrest the whole country and condemn it to a prison of hopelessness and despair.
Even President Mugabe would readily accept that his reign has been characterized by extreme partisanship and he has governed the country over the last 28 years by dividing it and not building a heritage for future generations.
I have been extremely humbled by the response to my proposal to set up a new bank of hope and change. Regrettably, there are many who want to dwell on the past instead of the future of Zimbabwe that challenges all of us. We are all agreed that President Mugabe’s style of governing has no place in the future of Zimbabwe.
It would be futile to debate at this defining hour about what needs to happen while choosing to fold our arms. The promissory note of hope, opportunity and transformation that was issued at independence is not worth the paper that it is written on. Those who choose to look back as a guide to the future will not assist the cause of change.
Those who love Zimbabwe surely must accept some responsibility for allowing the country to be broken.
The political actors that have been promising democratic change forgot to energize their support base to register to vote and equally they forgot to mobilize the kind of resources that any change will necessarily call for rather they sought to rely on external donors for financial and logistical support in a manner that has lent itself to exploitation by President Mugabe.
We are all agreed that President Mugabe has pursued disastrous foreign and domestic policies and has stubbornly refused to listen to anyone’s views except those who have made it a habit to tell him what he wants to hear.
Zimbabwe desperately needs a new direction and a President who can reach across the evident barriers between Zimbabwean citizens who ordinarily should be united in the quest for a better and brighter future to form new and dynamic alliances that can produce a new era of optimism and a healthier respect for the needs of others.
Any friend of Zimbabwe who cares to listen to the voices that speak of change will agree that the confusion that occupies many Zimbabwean minds is a product of what has been described as the Zanufication of national political discourse.
Even in the case of Makoni some have argued that because of his association with ZANU-PF he should be handled with caution. Some have also argued that any change they can believe in should be prosecuted by people with a zero association with ZANU-PF.
Equally some have insulted his intelligence by questioning his bona fides and suggesting that he is just a pawn in the bigger scheme of things. Those who know Makoni will accept that he has on many occasions chosen to disagree with conventional ZANU-PF ideology and tactics.
While it is generally accepted that political parties are juristic persons with their own personalities, in the case of Zimbabwe, many have come to accept that the state and party are one. If one accepts this notion then it becomes easy to argue that anyone who has worked for the government of Zimbabwe over the last 28 years must necessarily be excluded from its future. This line of thinking was applied in occupied Iraq to disastrous consequences.
I have received many emails from people who question why Makoni would wish to cling to a discredited party like ZANU-PF. Underpinning this thinking is a deeply held view that anything that smells like ZANU-PF is not authentic Zimbabwean and must necessarily not be embraced in any new post-Mugabe dispensation.
Makoni has opened a new conversation by refusing to be fired from ZANU-PF and electing to remain anchored in the party stable. He is challenging the minds that have argued over the last 8 years that the future of Zimbabwe only belongs to the MDC or non-state actors who have given a voice to the change agenda.
It is no wonder that such thinking has not resonated with the majority of Zimbabweans. ZANU-PF like all political parties is a club of members and it cannot be argued that all its members are at one with President Mugabe in respect of his tactics and strategies for prosecuting the national democratic revolution.
History will record that Makoni disagreed with President Mugabe on key policy issues leading to his being relieved of his duties as Finance Minister. At that defining hour he did not choose to leave the party but sought to change it from within in the same manner that Obama is trying to do in the USA. Obama could have formed his own party for change but had enough reason to use the Democratic Party machine to invest in the change that many Americans have come to believe in.
Was Makoni principled to remain in the party that disagreed with his way of thinking? Many of us would argue that in the face of challenges and arguments we must retreat. Those who have argued for democratic change have in many instances failed to articulate the kind of change they would want to see.
Would it be justified to say that the change that many sought was targeted at members of ZANU-PF to embrace the bigger picture that Zimbabwe is rather than confusing the party with the state? It falls to reason that the challenge was to convert ZANU-PF members like Makoni to finally see the light and accept that there is a leadership problem in Zimbabwe and its root cause is in the party.
We have to allow Makoni time to pursue his argument with ZANU-PF. What I understand Makoni to be saying is that like the Mutambara faction successfully did, ZANU-PF must be bigger than President Mugabe. Why should Makoni and not Mugabe leave the party? Why should he make it easy for Mugabe? What if ZANU-PF has founding principles that are acceptable to the majority of the party but has been hijacked by an Imperial President? How should the party respond when it has democratically endorsed a President whose time is up?
Surely any rational ZANU-PF supporter must accept that President Mugabe no longer has the currency to lift the country up. If this is the case, the battle must surely be on who should lead the party. This question can only be answered if we apply our minds to what Makoni is saying.
The MDC has failed to change the minds of ZANU-PF over the last 8 years and must accept the responsibility for failing to reach out to its political competitors. We must accept that the government of Zimbabwe should not belong to political associations rather it must and should belong to its citizens. When one speaks of change one must accept that it is vital to change the thinking of the practitioners of change. Makoni’s intervention is forcing us to think about change and presumably mature our dialogue on what kind of Zimbabwe we want.
Some have asked for Makoni’s vision for Zimbabwe forgetting that the real challenge is to convert the incumbent Imperial President into a servant of the people. Anyone who is interested and passionate about Zimbabwe must find it in themselves to contribute to the knowledge base about what kind of Zimbabwe they want to see.
We must accept that the bank of hope is bankrupt and we are all responsible for abdicating into accepting that a President must be intelligent and smarter than the tax payers who have the responsibility of financing the very state that he can use to limit their choices and freedom. Citizens are sovereign and no nation state can be above the citizens who should inform it.
To restore national vision that has been blurred during the last 28 years and more particularly during the last 8 years, Zimbabweans must be open minded and desist from being partisan. It is important that the barriers of ignorance are removed.
Zimbabwe finds itself at a moment in history marked by significant and seemingly intractable challenges. Any investor in the bank that must be created by friends of Zimbabwe in the diaspora must know that for Makoni to win the election the language of change must change from just blaming Mugabe or building campaigns on beating the other side but on bringing the Zimbabwean family together.
Zimbabwe and its friends are fed up with the divisive brand of politics that made it necessary for SADC to intervene to make Welshman Ncube/Tendai Biti and Goche/Chinamasa to talk to each other under the mediation of Mbeki when it is common knowledge that they were paid by the same source i.e. Zimbabwean taxes to seat in parliament forgetting their real purpose. Surely, this kind of politics of scoring points than solving problems must come to an end.
For Makoni to win and to govern Zimbabwe the era of bitter partisanship must come to an end and citizens must be the custodians and finally take ownership of their destiny. I have learnt not to trust any man with the power to limit my liberty and, therefore, my support for any change agenda is premised on my belief that ultimately I am sovereign but must work through other people to make the changes that I want to see possible.
Zimbabwe needs a new President and if it means such change will come from a former government Minister from ZANU-PF so be it. What is urgent is that Zimbabweans who cannot influence what happens on the 29 March must rise from a state of apathy and cynicism to a new destination of hope.
Change cannot have a life of its own. People who want change must invest in it and those with the resources must come to the party. The positive response I have received suggests that change is in the air. I have been informed that those are eligible to vote are already in the queues not for bread but to register their voice for real change.
What remains for us is to fuel the change agenda with the resources required to execute i.e. funds for the election campaign.
If we accept that the challenge is to change the politics of Zimbabwe then we must accept that a two pronged agenda is the only viable alternative. The legislative agenda will be to assist all progressive parliamentarians so that they can win irrespective of their political parties. With respect to the real prize, the agenda is simple vote against the incumbent by voting for Makoni.
Makoni will need to champion the change agenda that requires a new mindset and attitude from all concerned. Makoni needs to be assisted to create a working majority involving a coalition of the willing. The urgency of now cannot be overstated.
Attitude determines altitude and I have no doubt that if 1 million Zimbabweans in the diaspora posed for a minute to think about what is at stake they would agree that an investment by each person of just US$100 can do the job. Obama has challenged all of us to think outside the box and Zimbabweans are credited with the intelligence and the hour is now to show that Zimbabwe belongs to those who choose to dream.
Please join me on www.mmawere.com by adding your voice to the momentum of change. Together we can make Makoni the President Zimbabwe needs and also change ZANU-PF from an investor in a bank of injustice to a believer in the power of freedom and justice. If you are a friend of Zimbabwe, please join the coalition for change on www.zimcoalition.com.
*Mutumwa Mawere is a businnessman who lives in South Africa
|
|
|
|
| OPINIONS - OPINION |
|
 Zimbabwe 2008 – The politics of change – the Makoni Factor
By Mutumwa Mawere
8 February 2008
An election marks a defining stage in any nation but 29 March 2008 represents not only a landmark day but also a significant turning point in the history of post-colonial Zimbabwe.
If one accepts that no change is change one can easily appreciate why President Mugabe’s name is on the ballot. Even his most ardent and diminishing supporters would agree that Zimbabwe is at the crossroads and a better day is awaiting it.
The last 8 years have failed to produce the kind of change that the country required to lift it up instead the political and economic crisis has worsened. It is generally agreed that the political stalemate of the last 8 years is a reflection of a leadership deficit that is characteristic of many post colonial states in which fear is the optimal currency used to regulate and manage political behaviour under the guise of consensus and nation building.
Two political parties, the MDC and ZANU-PF led by Morgan Tsvangirai and President Mugabe, respectively, have dominated the political scene over the last 8 years and it is generally accepted that national interest has been sacrificed for political expediency and as a result the frontiers of poverty and hopelessness have increased and not diminished.
I have no doubt that both President Mugabe and Tsvangirai would agree that Zimbabwe deserves better than the kind of leadership they have provided over the last 8 years. While it is arguable whether it would be fair to compare Tsvangirai with President Mugabe given that the former has sought courageously to put his life on the line to bring the language of change at the forefront of political discourse, it must be accepted that the MDC has dismally failed to provide an alternative to the ZANU-PF way of doing things.
It would be grossly unfair if the history of Zimbabwe failed to acknowledge the efforts of MDC and its divided factions in helping expose the policy and leadership bankruptcy of ZANU-PF. However, it must be acknowledged also that rightly Zimbabweans feel let down by the amateurish prosecution of the change agenda and the obvious lack of cohesion and sense of purpose displayed by the leaders of the change project.
The urgency of change cannot be overstated, as is the need to find a viable vehicle for delivering such transformation. Zimbabwe is pregnant and it is obvious that ZANU-PF has also invested in change in so far as it has failed to deliver on the Zimbabwean promise and its leader, President Mugabe, must be held culpable for failing to lift the country to new a destination of opportunity and hope.
Due to the fact that Zimbabwe has not known of any other leader than President Mugabe, one has to start a review of his administration from 1980. When one looks back at the journey, one cannot overlook the manmade disasters and policy confusion, corruption, mismanagement and above all the arrogance of absolute power.
There are many who believe in the face of the most debilitating crisis and exodus of the country’s brain trust that they can bury their heads in the comfort of ZANU-PF desert sand ignoring that the future of the entire population is at stake and time for games is over. Equally, there is a belief in the opposition that only the actors on stage have the monopoly of reason and have what it takes to remove the cancer.
The election date is now known and thanks to SADC, MDC and ZANU-PF were reunited into co-sponsoring the constitutional and legal changes that were deemed to be problematic for any transition and electoral legitimacy. The election date is real and so are the choices available to Zimbabweans.
It is significant that President Mugabe sought and obtained a democratic endorsement from his party and not many of his adversaries can claim the same. What is refreshing is that a new factor has emerged in the form of Dr. Simba Makoni who has been persuaded to throw his name in the ring.
The timing of his entrance into the political theatre is significant not only because he waited to allow the MDC factions to come to an inescapable conclusion that they have no consensus leader but also after ZANU-PF had failed to find a leader that can look Zimbabweans in the eye and proclaim that he is offering change that citizens can believe in.
Makoni did not choose the easy rode of enveloping himself into political parties and then finding himself behaving undemocratically like many opposition parties who wanted to cut a deal to protect their incumbency ahead of the people of Zimbabwe as well as change the constitution under the cover of SADC mediated talks. Surely, it would be unfair to conclude that MDC was not party to the legislation passed during the last 8 years that many find rightly draconian and abhorrent to the extent that President Mbeki had to intervene to make the parliament of Zimbabwe work again.
Makoni has made the right decision to stand as an independent because Zimbabwe urgently needs a new direction and if anything, the last 28 years have demonstrated that the fate of a country can be manipulated by one individual even when the institutional framework exists for a democratic constitutional order. One cannot argue that the parliament of Zimbabwe has been effective in protecting the interests of the country and, if anything, no change will be meaningful if such change does not result in a change of the head of state.
Gono has already exposed that Zimbabwe can no longer claim to have a constitutional order in that the budget under his stewardship of the RBZ is no longer a vehicle for allocating national resources. Even the opposition who have been a constant feature of the state as parliamentarians must accept the responsibility for creating a situation where the state has become privatised.
Ordinarily, if all the current members of parliament loved Zimbabwe they would not have offered themselves for re-election after failing the people of Zimbabwe in providing the critical role of oversight. Many have accepted the existence of corruption in Zimbabwe and yet the parliament of Zimbabwe has failed to expose the true nature of corruption and, if anything, many of them have already been accommodated in the gravy train presenting a challenge for any post-Mugabe leader.
Some have argued that Makoni is not a principal but for him to succeed; he necessarily needs the protection of ZANU-PF heavyweights while accepting that such so-called heavyweights have failed to provide the kind of leadership required to lift up Zimbabwe. Does Makoni really need such so-called heavyweights? Do Zimbabweans need a new face to symbolise the kind of change they want to see? Does Makoni represent the face of change?
Makoni’s patience must be acknowledged and it just goes to demonstrate that he has thought long and hard about the challenge before Zimbabwe. He needs and deserves the support of all the people of Zimbabwe who rightly have been disillusioned by the many messengers of hope who have turned out to be no better than the people they purported to be fighting against.
Does Zimbabwe need five more years of political bickering? The political environment in polarised and will remain so if this is left to President Mugabe and his long time rivalries. The macroeconomic regression will continue unabated so will the future of Zimbabwe be condemned into a cul de sac. The challenge of restoring legitimacy is before Zimbabwe and I am not convinced that either President Mugabe or Tsvangirai will be able to deliver the kind of economic revival, national reconciliation, regional stability and more importantly remove the country from its pariah status.
At some stage, I had underestimated Makoni’s courage to subject himself to the rough and tumble of Zimbabwean politics of recriminations but I must give it to him for taking Zimbabwe first in his agenda. We can only support such courage and I do hope that anyone who wants to see change in Zimbabwe will take Makoni as his project.
Ibbo Mandaza has earned my respect for having the courage and vision of standing up while we all chose to be arm-chair revolutionaries. I have no doubt that Mandaza played a key part in helping convince Makoni to offer himself for abuse. Some will ask legitimately about who is behind Makoni. Please count me in for in him I see hope and it would be naïve for me to expect him to make hope possible while I choose to pontificate about my role in making tomorrow a brighter day.
No change will come of its own accord. I have been impressed by Barack Obama’s ability to communicate the urgency of now in the context of America and help make the most improbable thing in American history become probable. Can you imagine that in one month his campaign raised US$32 million from ordinary people hungry for change? I have no doubt that Zimbabweans will rise up to the challenge and dig deep into their pockets to invest in the kind of change they want to see in Zimbabwe. Makoni does not need any political heavyweight but needs the financial support and above all the vote on 29 March 2008.
If every Zimbabwean in the diaspora and anyone interested in seeing a different Zimbabwe were to sacrifice the price of one meal, for change in Zimbabwe, what a difference it would make to the Makoni candidature! It is never too late to make the investment. I will start with my own R1,000 rand and all I need is to find a bank that will take the money to Zimbabwe for Makoni and the many prospective parliamentarians who stand for a new Zimbabwe.
Together we can make a difference and construct a new garment of change fortressed by a common thread of hope. Anyone interested in this project, please indicate your appetite for change by registering your voice on my website: www.mmawere.com.
*Mutumwa Mawere is a businessman based in South Africa
|
|
|
|
| OPINIONS - OPINION |
|
 May I be the first to congratulate Mugabe
By Chido Makunike
29 January 2008
ZIMBABWE’S presidential and general elections are set for March 29, but one result is already obvious: Robert Mugabe is going to be returned as president.
Two months before the election, I might as well be the first to congratulate Mugabe on his assured win.
In a way, it really is a waste of time to hold the election at all because there are so many signals that there is no way any other result than a "win" for Mugabe can be contemplated. Whether or not Mugabe is still "popular" is an interesting but largely irrelevant issue to the outcome of this election.
This creates quite a dilemma for MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai. There are virtually no circumstances under which he can win the election, even if many more people vote for him than for Mugabe, so his participation would largely be a charade. Yet if he pulls out, he will be accused of being afraid of losing. He is in a no-win situation in a quite literal way.
But so is Mugabe, the impending "winner." The possibly ghastly consequences for him of his being turned out of office at the ballot box are obvious, and are just one reason that it will not happen. Yet his "win" on March 29 will be hollow and meaningless in many ways, particularly for the country, but for him as an individual as well.
The country he rules over may be in a shameful mess as he wrings his hands and looks for ever more imaginative excuses for that state of affairs, but Mugabe still has his pockets of sympathy and support. But it is also true that a significant body of world opinion regards him as such an oppressive ogre that they will automatically assume he stole the election.
It may be only Zimbabweans who vote in the election, but how Mugabe is negatively regarded in influential sections of the world has been a significant factor in his being a bombastically strong ruler, but who in practical terms is helpless and ineffective; a long-serving lame duck president. Whichever of Zimbabwe's many long-running problems you choose to examine, there is no one who any longer believes Mugabe is going to come up with some sensible, workable solution.
Those who support him do not any longer do it for the reason that they believe the country's fortunes will improve if he is given five more years to the 27 that he has already served.
To many of those supporters, Mugabe represents an anti-Western symbolism for which his uselessness to Zimbabweans' material fortunes can be excused.
For them, the fact that Zimbabwe is in such a poor state and has little prospect of reversing that decline under a Mugabe with seemingly no workable ideas is neither here nor there. After all, he speaks such good English when he insults the British and the Americans and oh, look at how elegantly he wears his British suits!
Likewise, those for whom Mugabe mainly represents the celebration of state violence and oppression against the citizens will see no redeeming qualities in the man no matter what he does.
Mugabe, therefore, will have no net gain in credibility from his win. He is also unlikely to have any net loss in credibility, but the chances of a net loss are higher than that of a net gain. This depends on factors like whether he can control himself from permitting the brutalization of opposition leaders by the police and then delightedly crowing about it.
It is this kind of short-sighted previous buffoonery that has contributed to the current reality in which he will in many respects still be a "loser" even if he "wins" the election.
An interesting aspect of the corner Mugabe has worked himself into with the notoriety that he seems to enjoy, but which has been so costly to the country, is that many people would not believe his victory was clean and legitimate even if it was. More than at any time before, the only electoral outcome which many onlookers would believe to be "free and fair" would be the one that is not going to happen: his losing!
So whatever the election "win" will represent for Mugabe, a significant strengthening of his international legitimacy will not be one of them. His opponents will assume electoral crookedness in his win and his supporters will not care whether his continuing in power was because he genuinely won the most votes or not.
Mugabe's "win" will mean business as usual for him and his ruling clique. It will also mean there is no reason to expect any change in the country's fortunes. The "illegal sanctions" that Mugabe blames for his utter helplessness to make any positive change will continue, the increasingly desperate economic experiments will continue, inflation will continue shooting up and so on. A Mugabe "win" means nothing would have changed to give even his supporters any reason to hope that these things will be brought under control or reversed.
For Mugabe, his new mandate will mean he will continue to have power in the physical, military sense, which perhaps is all that matters to him now. He can hire and fire ministers and other functionaries, he can make life uncomfortable for opponents, he can preside over ceremonial things and so forth, but there is no reason to believe that he will be any better able to deal with the day to day issues of survival that occupy most Zimbabweans than he has been in the last several years of steep decline. His presidential role will ever more be that of tin-pot dictator, not leader and motivator/facilitator of positive change.
It is very difficult to know if the opposition MDC is coming or going, so confusing is the state of affairs between its two factions and within them. Even if they had their act together, there is no way to tell what kind of government they would make. But clearly, if it were possible to have a "free and fair" election, their presidential candidate would have a very good chance of convincingly beating Mugabe just on the basis of the disastrous state of the country after his 27 years at the helm, and his utter lack of any credible plan to change that situation. He is not even pretending to have anything to offer.
Given the foregoing, the lone permissible outcome of Mugabe's assured win on March 29, by hook or by crook, is an assured loss for Zimbabwe.
*Chido Makunike is a Zimbabwean writer. He can be contacted on e-mail: chidomakunike@gmail.com
|
|
|
|
| OPINIONS - OPINION |
|
 Makoni, Tsvangirai & Mutambara: wise men from the East?
By Dr Alex T. Magaisa
17 January 2008
THE Eastern Highlands of Zimbabwe is a land of the incredible beauty. The great mountain ranges from Nyanga, Chimanimani down to Vumba form a stunning landscape that showcases the best of nature's choreography.The misty peaks, sharp and jagged granite spikes, the mixture of exotic and indigenous forests competing for space on the undulating landscape punctuated by streams and rivers, combine to create an almost serene
atmosphere.
With such a rich and beautiful backdrop, it is, perhaps, natural that the natives of this beautiful land are a cheerful lot, endowed with a priceless sense of humour.
Just as it delivers the backdrop to a brilliant sunrise, this land has bequeathed to the Zimbabwean nation a multitude of great sons and daughters in various fields of endeavour. But few have had luck in politics.
Few are highly spoken of as Chief Rekayi Tangwena, the man who led a young Robert Mugabe to join the guerrillas in Mozambique at the height of the liberation struggle in the 1970s. Chief Tangwena symbolises the struggle against land dispossessions by the minority regime in the 1960s.Then there is Herbert Chitepo, Zimbabwe's first black barrister and a revered leader of the then revolutionary Zanu party - but a life brutally
severed in its prime.
Edgar 'Twoboy' Tekere, is another veteran of the liberation struggle who hails from the region. He was by Mugabe's side as they were led to Mozambique by Chief Tangwena. Ever the independent man, Tekere was one of the first to wriggle out of Mugabe's grip in 1989. Through the Zimbabwe Unity Movement (ZUM), he led serious opposition to Mugabe's leadership and ridiculous plans for a one-party state in the 1990 elections. These were brave efforts but they were all in vain. Over the years, Tekere rolled over to the margins, only making occasional comments, and only recently publishing a book which didn't endear him to Mugabe.
The story of this region would be incomplete without mention of the Reverend Ndabaningi Sithole, the original Zanu leader. But he too, fell by the wayside and attempts in the 1990s to summon opposition when he returned from exile did not achieve tangible support. The Zanu PF leadership never forgave him, even in death.
The list of luminaries native to these eastern lands, ranging from politics, business, academia to sport is so long it could fill a whole book. But one cannot help but detect a common thread running right through the political careers of the sons of this land: so much promise, so much potential but always destined for an early sunset.
It is no surprise that two men leading the current struggle against Mugabe hail from this beautiful land of the Samanyika. Both Arthur Mutambara and Morgan Tsvangirai (leaders of the two splinter groups within the Movement for Democratic Change) have roots in this land. But they too, like their eminent predecessors, have encountered great obstacles in their respective paths towards national leadership. Their talent and appeal is undoubted but a combination of factors has ensured that they are yet to crack the leadership code.
Simba Makoni the man reported variously in the media to be the latest in the line of Mugabe's challengers is yet another illustrious native of Manicaland. But beyond the shared geographical origin, there is little to connect Makoni, and fellow challengers, Tsvangirai and Mutambara. Makoni, has been Zanu PF through and through.
One of the youngest of the post-independence cabinet, it was not long before Makoni was designated to the then young regional organisation SADCC (now SADC), where he served as General Secretary for many years. Critics say his tenure at SADCC is not without controversy.
It was thought that Makoni was earning apprenticeship in the science of government, in preparation for eventual leadership of the country. After all, he was a young man who could only learn and wait for his chance later in life, presumably, when the old hands retired. But he returned, waited and the old hands are refusing to retire, though the country is collapsing. Along with like-minded counterparts in the party, he must be a frustrated man.
Makoni has a certain stature, urbane appearance and exudes an aura that makes his presence difficult to ignore. There is an air of sophistication about the man which, even suspicious anti-Zanu PF folks cannot dismiss. He looks and carries himself like a modern, 21st century leader, suave and well-spoken, a refined politician that you could possibly trust with the future.
Yet Makoni too suffers from charges similar to those that have dogged his fellow native of the East - Mutambara. It is the questions that enquire into his whereabouts during the many years that people have been suffering. Why was he quiet all along?
But more importantly, there is the question whether Makoni has sufficient grassroots support necessary to make an effective challenge. The MDC controls the urban vote and Makoni would struggle to win their hearts and minds carrying a Zanu PF ticket. The rural vote is even harder to capture, a task made worse, without sufficient time to set up structures.
But, who knows, perhaps the discontentment within Zanu PF is so profound that Makoni has powerful backers that could capture the structures and deliver the much-needed grassroots support? The enormity of his task, though, cannot be underestimated. There is simply no time between any official announcement of political intentions that have been strongly rumoured of late and the proposed election in March.
Perhaps Makoni and his backers wish to exploit the "shock-value" that comes with the announcement just prior to the election, giving instant vitality to the political campaign. A lot will depend on how well the news of his challenge will be received, if it happens at all. It is a huge but brave gamble.
Meanwhile, the sun will rise beautifully over the Eastern Highlands, just as it has done for centuries. The hills have eyes, they say. Sure enough they have seen signs and daughters try and fail. It remains to be seen whether they will witness success, and live to tell generations to come.
*Alex Magaisa is based at Kent Law School, UK and can be contacted at wamagaisa@yahoo.co.uk or a.t.magaisa@kent.ac.uk
|
|
|
|
| OPINIONS - OPINION |
|
 Ngugi laments Kenya violence
11 January 2008
Renowned Kenyan novelist and playwright Ngugi wa Thiong'o writes on the unrest that has engulfed Kenya since last month's disputed elections.
“Writers must sometimes feel like the Greek prophetess Cassandra, gifted to see the future but fated not to be believed.
What is unfolding in Kenya could as well have been lifted from my novel Wizard of the Crow where the ruling party and the opposition parities engaged in Western-sponsored democracy become mirror images of one another in their absurdity and indifference to the poor.
The picture of men and women burnt down in a church where they had gone for refuge still haunts my mind. A child running away from the fire was caught and hurled back into the flames. One of the few survivors was quoted as saying: "But they knew me; we were neighbours. I thought Peter was a friend - a good neighbour. How could Peter do this to me?"
I had heard the same puzzled cry from Bosnia. I had heard the same cry from Iraq. I had heard the same, same words from Rwanda: "We were neighbours; we'd married into each other. How could this happen?"
And now I hear the same cry from Eldoret North in my beloved Kenya. For me this burning of men, women and children in a church is a defining single instant of the current political impasse in Kenya.
And this must be separated from accusations and counter-accusations of rigged elections by the contending parties.
Rigged elections is one thing - it can be righted by any mutually agreed political measures - but ethnic cleansing is another matter altogether. What is disturbing is that this instant seems to have been part of a co-ordinated programme with similar acts occurring in several other places at about the same time against ordinary members of the same community.
Ordinary people do not wake up one morning and suddenly decide to kill their neighbours. Ethnic cleansing is often instigated by the political elite of one community against another community. It is premeditated - often an order from political warlords.
Or it may be the outcome of an elitist ideology of demonising and isolating another community.
Either way the aim is to drive members of the targeted community from the region.
Frantz Fanon, the intellectual visionary of the Third World, had long ago warned us of the dangers of the ideology of regionalism preached by an elite whose money can buy them safe residence in any part of a country.
A single instance of premeditated ethnic cleansing can lead to an unstoppable cycle of vendettas - a poor-on-poor violence - while those who tele-guided them to war through the ideology of hate and demonisation are clinking glasses in middle-class peace at cocktail parties with the elite or the supposed enemy community.
This crime should be investigated by the United Nations. If it is found that a political organisation has run a campaign on a programme that consciously seeks to isolate another community as a community, then they ought to be held fully accountable for the consequences of their ideology and actions.
It is often easier to blame a government when it is involved in massacres. This is as it should be.
A government must always be held to higher standards, for its very legitimacy lies in its capacity to ensure peace and security for all communities.
But what about if such a massacre is inspired by a programme of an opposition movement?
This ought to receive equally severe condemnation from all and sundry, for being in opposition does not give an organisation the right to run on an ideology of isolation and hate targeted at another community.
An opposition movement is potentially a government of tomorrow. A programme that such a political organisation draws while in opposition would obviously be the programme they'll try to implement when in power. That's why such acts must be condemned even when they are clothed in progressive, democratic-sounding words and phrases.
I therefore call upon the United Nations to act and investigate the massacres in Kenya as crimes against humanity and let the chips fall where they may.
For the sake of justice, healing and peace now and in the future I urge all progressive forces not to be so engrossed with the political wrongs of election tampering that they forget the crimes of hate and ethnic cleansing - crimes that have led to untimely deaths and the displacement of thousands.
The world does not need another Bosnia; Africa certainly does not need another Rwanda.
Prof Ngugi wa Thiong'o was jailed in Kenya for his political beliefs, under President Arap Moi’s government. He now lives and works in the USA.
*This article was first published in BBC World Update
|
|
|
|
| OPINIONS - OPINION |
|
 African leaders must condemn Mugabe
13th December, 2007
By Kofi Bentil
AFRICAN Union leaders who met their European Union counterparts at the weekend are supposed to represent our future but when it comes to Robert
Mugabe they are stuck in an ideological time-warp: Mugabe is a freedom-fighter and Zimbabwe is a victim of Western depredations, including threats to boycott the meeting.
Even democratically-elected Ghanaian President John Kufuor, Chairman of the African Union, recently observed equivocally: "When the leader of the opposition gets beaten up, for good or ill, naturally all concerned should be worried."
At least Mugabe is honest: "Some are crying that they were beaten. Yes, you will be thoroughly beaten. When the police say move, you move. If you don't move, you invite the police to use force," he said about trade union activists arrested in September last year.
Paralysed by hero-worship, the Southern African Development Community summit in August supported Mugabe's claims of a UK plot, our Heads of State gave Mugabe a podium and a standing ovation in Kenya in May, most of them backed Zimbabwe's cruelly ironic election to the UN Commission on Sustainable Development this year and the whole AU boycotted a 2003 summit with the EU because Mugabe was excluded. Their pretext is the sacred mantra of non-interference and respecting sovereignty-meaning the sovereignty of ruling cliques, not of long-suffering citizens.
Our leaders have to recognise that Mugabe is not an ideological dictator in the mould of their heroes Kwame Nkrumah in Ghana, Julius Nyerere in
Tanzania, Kenneth Kaunda in Zambia or Milton Obote in Uganda, nor even like ideologues such as Hitler, Stalin or his own hero Kim Il Sung: he is a
straightforward kleptocrat determined to hold on to power at any cost.
Even the democratic African leaders, including Kufuor and South Africa's Thabo Mbeki, like to hear Mugabe blaming the West for Zimbabwe's and all our ills, as he did in Nairobi at May's Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) summit.
He was applauded for complaining about commodity prices being fixed by the West, although free markets do not fix prices in the way that African governments fix prices and monopolise commodity sales.
SADC leaders in Lusaka even backed Mugabe's claim that Zimbabwe is a victim of economic sanctions although the only measures, by the EU and the USA, are travel and financial restrictions on about 130 members of the ruling clique (in fact, the UK is the second biggest provider of humanitarian assistance to Zimbabwe).
SADC executive secretary Dr. Tomaz Salomao said in November: "for us they are sanctions and our approach has been to have them lifted."
Many also shared Mugabe's economically-ignorant call for self-sufficiency. But no developed country is self-sufficient in commodities (nor even most
manufactured products) and we Africans cannot live on a diet of cocoa beans and tea: selling it is much more profitable.
Manufacturing and adding value are great economic aims but they do not happen successfully by government decree. right now, Africans suffer heavy
import tariffs for essential inputs (such as fertiliser) and medicines, state control of exports, lack of property rights, obstacles to private enterprise and a ubiquitous corrupt bureaucracy.
Yet our leaders do not accept that the key to our future is allowing our people to create wealth: we cannot free ourselves from poverty without
economic freedoms such as property rights, the rule of law and free markets. But the Mugabe version remains attractive because we all like to believe that our failures are someone else's fault. And Mugabe remains in power after 27 years, at the age of 83!
It seems true that evil men live long but that is because every day an evil man lives is like eternity to the oppressed.
Neither South Africa's "quiet diplomacy" nor Western restrictions on money-laundering can influence a man who is cocooned in delusions and
treated with deference by his neighbours. Our new crop of elected African leaders, blithely talking of an African Renaissance, should be emboldened by
their own democratic authority to face up to people like Mugabe (and the leaders of Ethiopia, Sudan and Somalia).
They should make Mugabe unwelcome at civilised meetings like the EU-AU summit in Lisbon and put legal pressure on him by consensus, as West African leaders did to force out Charles Taylor in Liberia.
Our leaders managed to evade any action at the recent Commonwealth Summit because Zimbabwe is no longer a member but the AU-EU summit puts Mugabe centre-stage: he attended the summit and Britain's Prime Minister Gordon Brown boycotted it. They should heed the call of Ghanaian former UN
Secretary-General Kofi Annan who said recently: "Africans must guard against a pernicious, self-destructive form of racism that unites citizens to rise up and expel tyrannical rulers who are white, but to excuse tyrannical
rulers who are black."
Before embarrassing themselves again, our leaders must come to their senses and join the huge majority of Africans who reject the barbaric Mugabe: by embracing economic freedoms to save their own countries, they would offer hope to Zimbabweans for the day after Mugabe.
*This article is published courtesy of New Vision, Uganda. The writer is a lecturer at Ashesi University and a consultant in business strategy in Accra, Ghana
|
|
|
|
| OPINIONS - OPINION |
|
 07 December 2007
Implications of Zuma winning ANC leadership race
By Mutumwa D. Mawere
THE colonial state was founded on the notion that natives could not be trusted with the vote and, therefore, they had to be excluded from governance issues. The value system that underpinned the colonial state informed the constitutional order of the day.
The role of the colonial state was to promote, protect and sustain the hegemony of the settler community. At the core of the colonial state was the need to commodify native labour and this was achieved by systematically alienating natives from economic resources.
The debate about the continent’s future cannot be complete without a critical examination of the ideals, principles and morality that should provide a compass to citizens when making choices about who should govern the post colonial state.
In a colonial state, the masses were denied the right to vote because the outcome of such an enterprise would have produced unacceptable monsters whose values would threaten the status quo and thereby undermine the integrity of the colonial state. What has changed, if any, in post colonial Africa?
In as much as the settlers did not trust the masses to make their own leadership choices, the leaders of post colonial Africa appear to share the same sentiment but have invented new and persuasive arguments about why the freedom of choice particularly in deciding on who should lead the national democratic revolution must not be generalised and liberalised.
There are no better laboratory cases of two post colonial states sharing different economic circumstances and yet having a common approach to politics than contemporary Zimbabwe and South Africa.
In South Africa, there is a contestation for power, albeit within the same political formation i.e. the African National Congress, whereas in Zimbabwe it is between an opposition and the incumbent leaders. The contestants are: Zuma versus Mbeki in the South African case, and Mugabe versus Tsvangirai in the Zimbabwean case.
Mugabe and Mbeki are generally perceived to be intellectual giants and their supporters see in them the only reliable custodians of the national democratic revolution. In fact, eloquent arguments are often advanced why change of guard must not be contemplated not only because the revolution will be sacrificed, but that they epitomise the kind of leadership required in a post colonial state notwithstanding their effectiveness in addressing the poverty challenge that confronts the respective countries.
In contemporary Africa, there are many leaders who fit into the Mbeki/Mugabe category. Over the last 50 years, Africa has produced similar intellectual giants and in each and every country where such giants have taken the leadership mantle, the tragedy is that rhetoric has failed to alleviate poverty and entrench democracy.
Mbeki faces opposition from within his ranks whereas Mugabe faces opposition from without. Both Mbeki and Mugabe come from the womb of the liberation struggle with impeccable credentials as leaders who stood against the very principles that their citizens accuse them of promoting and entrenching.
Their respective parties, ANC and Zanu PF, are to hold their congresses in a few weeks time. Whereas Mugabe will be endorsed at the forthcoming congress without any opposition, the same cannot be said about Mbeki who will preside over a conference as an underdog. Nowhere in Africa has an incumbent leader presided over a congress in which his fate is uncertain.
Both Mugabe and Mbeki appear to have addressed the gender issue in government. The only difference is that Mbeki’s deputy in the state is a female and yet in the party it is his foremost opponent. In Zimbabwe’s case, Mugabe has two deputies in both the state and party one of which is a female.
Whereas the Zimbabwean economy is in the intensive care and begging for a doctor with the right medicine, Mugabe is not under any real threat. However, the South African economy is fundamentally sound and Mbeki can rightly claim some credit for it and yet it is evident that his leadership is under a tsunami-like threat.
Despite the many negatives that appear to stick on Zuma, he has emerged as the most trusted person to lead by the rank and file members of the party. What is clear is that the profile of Zuma would not have been acceptable in a colonial state to qualify as a leader. In a strange twist, the forces that appear to be against Zuma are the same people who were champions of the struggle against racism and the denial of civil rights to the majority.
After all, the liberation struggle was about giving people the right to choose without conditioning their choices. In as much as Zuma did not nominate himself, it now appears that he is being crucified by his colleagues for being popular.
Although he is acceptable as a deputy to Mbeki in the same party, there are people who believe that he cannot be promoted to number one. It appears that being a President in post colonial Africa has been redefined to exclude so-called populists with little or no regard to the constitution of the party or country.
When will the masses have the freedom of choice in Africa? This question can be best answered by reviewing what President Mbeki in the aftermath of the nominations wrote in his weekly online newsletter. The President in his article entitled: “Defend ANC’s principles”, makes the argument that in nominating Zuma with his perceived populist political baggage, the party risks negating the founding principles and values of the party.
The same argument was advanced by Minister Alec Erwin in an article entitled: “Delegates face test of strength”. Minister Erwin whom I presume has no problem with Zuma being number two in the party, makes the following arguments: “For those who think that the worst is behind us and we can now indulge in the facile electoral politics of the developed world, there will be a rude shock awaiting them should their plans succeed.”
He is arguing that if Zuma is elected as President of ANC, South Africa will turn back the clock of progress and return to the former apartheid days. Naturally, any right thinking member of the party when presented with this logic would not dare elect a person like Zuma.
In other words, Minister Erwin shares the same values as the architects of apartheid who passionately believed in responsible governments. They resisted using the state machinery against the march of freedom of choice and it appears that notwithstanding Minister Erwin’s liberation credentials, he still believes that electoral politics is a luxury South Africa can ill-afford particularly if it produces a leader in the form of Zuma with a popular base.
Who benefits from a leader without a popular base? Although the liberation struggle was underpinned by a collective and popular cause above personal interests, a leader that emerges from the collective is easily regarded as a threat to the very same people who derives his legitimacy from the masses.
Minister Erwin then argues that: “The South African society and economy are not yet in a position where nationhood, tolerance and prosperity can be taken for granted. The prospects for these can only be achieved by an effective developmental state.”
In advancing this argument, the risk exists that it may be construed that he is saying that Africa is not ready for democracy and leadership should be reserved for intellectuals or incumbents. Could he be suggesting that if Zuma is elected, the effectiveness of the developmental state will be compromised? How familiar is this argument in Africa? Who benefits from such arguments?
On the gender implications of electing Zuma, this is what Erwin had to say: “In the ANC Women’s League, sisterhood and respect were sacrificed to the expediency of electoral politics.” By getting the nomination of the league, Zuma is now accused of being opposed to the emancipation of women, tribalism, and unprincipled populism.
I believe that Erwin is aware that five of the top six positions in the party currently under the leadership of President Mbeki are held by men and yet he makes the accusation that four of the top six nominated by Zuma’s supporters are men. It is only in government that President Mbeki has placed confidence in women. The manner in which the gender issue is now being raised in relation to Zuma tends to dilute the message and leads to the unfortunate suspicion that women are being used as fodder by selfish men. It is not clear whether Erwin is suggesting that democracy should be suspended to allow the assimilation of women into leadership positions.
In a democratic state, how are such women to be selected? Who should they represent? Who benefits from such women being elevated without the blessing of the grass roots?
What is evident in the South African context is a clear value struggle between the contestants, making the outcome of the conference a significant development in the history of the continent. If Zuma wins, the implications are frightening for those that believe state power must be exclusive and the masses must be spared from choosing their leaders.
In the case of Zimbabwe, President Mugabe has made the argument that he does not face any domestic opposition. Rather, he argues, post colonial Zimbabwe has been confronted with a dangerous imperialist-inspired and sponsored opposition led by puppets.
A line has thus been drawn that Zimbabwe will never be a colony again, suggesting that any electoral outcome that produces a leader outside the liberation framework will be resisted and undermined. Accordingly, the masses can only make one rational choice i.e. maintain the status quo at all costs even if that means more poverty.
Whose values should inform a post colonial state? It is evident that the ruling elites have arrogated to themselves the right to choose what is right for the masses.
If the masses want a Tsvangirai as their leader, this will be resisted. The perception in both Zimbabwe and South Africa is that the opposition to the incumbents is being engineered by global capitalism supported by naïve comprador labour movements.
Accordingly, the contestation for power takes an ideological context in which the ideals, principles, and revolutionary morality of liberation struggle are mischievously used to deny competition for the highest offices in Africa, effectively changing the address of sovereignty to the wise leaders of the struggle who see in themselves as indispensable custodians of the revolution.
Mutumwa Mawere is a businessman based in South Africa. You can contact him at: mmawere@global.co.za
|
|
|
|
| OPINIONS - OPINION |
|
 28 November 2007
Tribute to Senegales film maker Ousmane Sembène
The death of the Senegalese writer and film-maker Ousmane Sembène (pictured) on June 10 2007 shocked people across the world. One 30 November the Barbican Centre in London will be screening one of Sembène’s film 'Camp Thiaroye' in memory of the Senegalese writer and director.
Keith Shiri pays tribute to Ousmane Sembène in an article which first appeared in The Guardian blog.
Although he was 84 years old and had been in poor health for more than a year, he continued to work on his last feature film project, Brotherhood of Rats. During his last visit to London, in 2005, he looked so youthful both in body and mind. He engaged us, his audience, with some hilarious stories of his experiences in Europe and Africa as a second world war veteran and a trade unionist, respectfully lampooning the impotent African leadership until the small hours of the night.
He was an important figure in post-colonial politics and spent most of his spare time in public libraries, attending seminars on Marxism and Communism wherever he could.
He was revered as a true cinematic griot, a custodian of history and a wise counsellor. He was also deeply aware of the urgent need for political and social change in Africa - as reflected in his body of work, which includes more than a dozen feature films, many more short films and several books.
Sembène's pivotal works include his seminal short film Borom Sarret about a day in the day of a Dakar cart driver, which he admits was influenced by 1940s Italian neorealist cinema, and Xala which is a satire about the new bourgeoisie at independence. In them, Sembène reveals his sharp scrutiny and critique of the incoming African nationalist leaders, their western supporters and the departing colonial officers.
He continued to stress up to the last days of his life that unless the whole continent was prepared to fight for its own true identity and self respect, smart national anthems and flags of whatever colour would not translate into a genuine liberation of the African continent.
|
|
|
|
| OPINIONS - OPINION |
|
Ecotourism: suicide or development?
By Ole Kamuaro
The trend towards the commercialisation of tourism schemes disguised as sustainable, nature-based, environmentally friendly ecotourism ventures has become the subject of considerable public controversy and concern. These schemes may have serious impacts on nature and society, particularly in the South.
This so-called ecotourism has become the fastest growing sub-sector of the tourist industry, with an annual growth rate of 10-15% worldwide. At the same time, international tourism to the Third World is rapidly increasing by 6% per year, compared to growth in developed countries of only 3.5%. At present, 20% of international tourists travel to southern countries.
Kenya, Tanzania and South Africa reap significant economic benefits from these commercial ventures. But the negative psycho-social impact of this type of tourism;including physical displacement of persons and gross violation of fundamental rights;far outweigh its intended medium-term economic benefits.
East Africa provides excellent examples of the disastrous nature of these activities. Mass tourism was first introduced to these regions in the 1950s with the legalisation of hunting and culling of wild game by the then "white settlers," the British colonial masters who controlled Kenya and Tanzania.
The need for exclusive hunting and recreational zones inaccessible to "natives" led to the creation of protected areas, national parks and game reserves. These areas became very important revenue-earning ventures with the establishment of lodges and tourist campsites.
But 70% of national parks and game reserves in East Africa are on pastoralist lands, particularly Masai land. The first undesirable impact of tourism on the Masai of both these countries was massive loss of land. Parks and game reserves require considerable space and investment.
Local and national governments in these countries took unfair advantage of the ignorance of the Masai and robbed them of huge chunks of grazing land, in most cases the best pasture areas, putting to risk their only socioeconomic livelihood, pastoralism.
The fierce loyalty of these people to their traditions had soured their relations with their colonial rulers.
They were provided with few or no social and infrastructure services; as post-independence governments did little to improve their literacy rate, few acquired a formal education. While others adapted to modern ways of life the Masai pursued traditional pastoralism, which has unfairly been considered backward and wasteful as an economic activity.
Ironically, pastoralism and conservation of nature go hand in hand. Given the Masai"s large open tracts of land, abundant plant and animal wildlife, and their rich and much-romanticised culture, it was almost inevitable that they would be targeted by large-scale tourism.
In Kenya, tourism has not brought any tangible economic benefits to the Masai people. Despite their loss of land, employment favours better-educated workers from other parts of the country. Investors in the tourism industry are not local and so have not ploughed back their profits into the local economy.
Traditionally, land was not a commodity for exchange like money or livestock. With the introduction of tourism it has become possible to trade land for money and this has created destitution and poverty, pitting members of the same clan against one another.
In Tanzania, the picture is similar and in some cases even worse. In Mkomazi, a game reserve was designated without informing or consulting local people, who simply received an eviction order from their own government.
In Ngorongoro district, the Sultan of the United Arab Emirates was allocated a hunting corridor through vast grazing land, with no limit set on hunting. The Masai were never informed of the development. When they reacted with indignation, grazing restrictions were imposed on their herds.
Tourism and hunting always take the best land.
Clearly, tourism as a trade does not empower those who make it rich and satisfying. It simply exploits and depletes, particularly in the Third World. It has to be redefined and reoriented if it is ever to become sustainable. Biodiversity and environmentally intact lands form the basis of ecological stability. But this has already been severely affected by industrialisation, urbanisation, unsustainable agricultural practices and mass tourism.
While ecotourism sounds comparatively benign, one of its most serious impacts is usurpation of "virgin" territories; national parks, wildlife sanctuaries and other wilderness areas; which are then packaged as green products for Ecotourists.
With the tremendous expansion of commercialised ecotourism, environmental degradation, including deforestation, disruption of ecological life systems and various forms of pollution, has in fact increased. Even its proponents concede that ecotourism is far from a panacea for environmental destruction.
*This article is published courtesy of East African Business Week.
|
|
|
|
| OPINIONS - OPINION |
|
Mugabe: a tyrant from the start
By James Kirchick
September 30, 2007
As Zimbabwe's president, Robert Mugabe, presides over what might be the most rapid disintegration yet of a modern nation-state, it has become de rigueur for journalists, politicians and academics to offer what has become a near-universal analysis: Mugabe, who has ruled his country uninterrupted for 27 years, was a promising leader who became corrupted over time by power.
This meme was popularized not long after Mugabe began seizing white-owned farms in 2000. Four years ago, in response to these raids, the New York Times editorialized that "in 23 years as president, Mr. Mugabe has gone from independence hero to tyrant." Earlier this week, Archbishop Desmond Tutu said that "I'm just devastated by what I can't explain, by what seems to be an aberration, this sudden change in character."
The characterization of Mugabe as a good man gone wrong extends to popular culture as well. In the 2005 political thriller "The Interpreter," Nicole Kidman played a dashing, multilingual exile from the fictional African country of Matobo, whose ruler was once a soft-spoken, cerebral schoolteacher who liberated his country from a white minority regime but became a despot. Mugabe certainly understood the likeness; he accused Kidman and her costar, Sean Penn, of being part of a CIA plot to oust him.
But this popular conception of Mugabe -- propagated by the liberals who championed him in the 1970s and 1980s -- is absolutely wrong. From the beginning of his political career, Mugabe was not just a Marxist but one who repeatedly made clear his intention to run Zimbabwe as an authoritarian, one-party state. Characteristic of this historical revisionism is former Newsweek southern Africa correspondent Joshua Hammer, writing recently in the liberal Washington Monthly that "more than a quarter-century after leading his guerrilla army to victory over the racist regime of Ian Smith in white-minority-ruled Rhodesia, President Robert Mugabe has morphed into a caricature of the African Big Man."
But Mugabe did not "morph" into "a caricature of the African Big Man." He has been one since he took power in 1980 -- and he displayed unmistakable authoritarian traits well before that. Those who were watching at the time should have known what kind of man Mugabe was, and the fact that so many today persist in the contention that Mugabe was a once-benign ruler speaks much about liberal illusions of African nationalism.
Mugabe's formative political education began in 1964, during a decade of imprisonment for subversive activity against the white minority regime that ruled Zimbabwe, then known as Rhodesia. While imprisoned, Mugabe earned degrees in law and economics by correspondence courses from the University of London and became a revolutionary Marxist. After he was released, he helped lead a civil war against the government.
All the participants in the Rhodesian war used vicious tactics. But Mugabe displayed a particular ruthlessness that ought to have indicated what sort
of ruler he might one day become. In 1978, four black moderates announced that they had reached an "internal settlement" with the white regime, paving the way for democratic elections. One of these leaders, Ndabaningi Sithole, dispatched 39 envoys to meet representatives of Mugabe and Joshua Nkomo, another guerrilla leader. The envoys were captured, murdered and, according
to Time magazine, "their bodies were then laid out by the guerrillas in a grisly line at the side of the road as a warning to local tribespeople."
The following year, in protest of the election that then-Premier Ian Smith had organized with black leaders willing to lay down their arms, Mugabe's
organization released a death list naming 50 "Zimbabwean black bourgeoisie,
traitors, fellow-travelers and puppets of the Ian Smith regime, opportunistic running-dogs and other capitalist vultures." During those elections, Mugabe and Nkomo's forces killed 10 black civilians attempting to vote. Mugabe's men also blew up a Woolworth's store and massacred Catholic missionaries.
Mugabe was clear about his preference for authoritarian rule. Years before taking office, asked what sort of political future he envisioned for Zimbabwe, Mugabe expressed his belief that "the multiparty system . . . is a luxury" and that if Zimbabweans did not like Marxism, "then we will have to re-educate them."
Today, with Zimbabwe suffering the highest inflation and lowest life-expectancy rates in the world, it is fashionable to call Mugabe a "caricature" of an African despot. But Mugabe became that caricature immediately after assuming office. He confiscated about a dozen private companies associated with the rival ZAPU party and expropriated farms that were owned by associates of Nkomo (his erstwhile liberation ally), a harbinger of what he would do to white farmers 20 years later. At a political rally in 1982, Mugabe said about his own political party: "ZANU-PF will rule forever."
In 1984, Mugabe imprisoned Methodist Bishop Abel Muzorewa, who had won the 1979 multiracial election boycotted by Mugabe, for 10 months without charge, falsely accusing him of conspiring against Zimbabwe.
And over several years in the early 1980s, Mugabe executed what arguably might be the worst of his many atrocities, a campaign of terror against the minority Ndebele tribe in which he unleashed a North Korean-trained army unit that killed between 10,000 and 30,000 people.
Yet, even in the midst of these various crimes, Mugabe never lost his fan base in the West. In 1986, the University of Massachusetts Amherst bestowed on Mugabe an honorary doctorate of laws just as he was completing his genocide against the Ndebele. In April of this year, as the campus debated revoking the degree it ought never have given him, African American studies professor Ekwueme Michael Thelwell, who had been in favor of honoring Mugabe two decades ago, told the Boston Globe: "They gave it to the Robert Mugabe of the past, who was an inspiring and hopeful figure and a humane political leader at the time."
Similarly, in 1984, the University of Edinburgh gave Mugabe an honorary doctorate (revoked in July of this year), and in 1994, Mugabe was inexplicably given an honorary knighthood by Queen Elizabeth II.
What explains the revisionist account of Mugabe? Partly, it is what might be termed the West's "Orientalist" view of Zimbabwe. According to this interpretation, it was only when Mugabe started going after whites that the world began paying attention. The anti-white violence of the early 2000s took no more than a dozen white lives and the lives of many more black farm workers -- peanuts compared with the thousands of Ndebeles slaughtered in the mid-'80s.
The British media, which nurture a residual interest in a former colony where many people of British ancestry still live, helped turn Mugabe into an international villain when he began killing white people. In the eyes of Westerners, tribal violence -- in which blacks kill other blacks -- is par for the course in Africa, and, besides, Mugabe actually killed far fewer of his people than many other African despots. That Mugabe did not immediately ruin Zimbabwe's economy or force the whites out -- as Idi Amin did in Uganda -- is a large part of why the West did not portray him as a villain. By African standards, he really was not all that bad.
Still, this does not account for the overt whitewashing of Mugabe's horrific past. Throughout the Rhodesian civil war in the 1970s, many in the media attempted to portray Mugabe as akin to Nelson Mandela, the quintessence of the heroic, international statesman. Months after his election in 1980, the New York Times opined that "Mr. Mugabe has quickly established himself as an African statesman of the first rank." The media already had its villain -- Rhodesia's intractable whites -- and portraying Mugabe as just another African strongman bent on turning his country into a one-party dictatorship would have complicated the story of good versus evil.
Mugabe was also a brilliant and eloquent spokesman for black African grievances against colonial rule and for post-colonial aspirations of independence and self-sufficiency. And it's true that after taking office, he preached racial reconciliation rather than retribution, surprising many whites. But a fully honest accounting also would have recognized Mugabe to be, whatever his virtues, an authoritarian thug hellbent on acquiring – and attaining -- power at all costs. Mugabe's destructive behavior over the last seven years has not been "an aberration" but is perfectly consistent with the way he has ruled Zimbabwe since 1980.
In 2000, at the start of Mugabe's seizures of white land, New York Times columnist (and early Mugabe fan) Anthony Lewis admitted, on behalf of quite a few journalists, diplomats and academics in the West, "how wrong we were" about Mugabe. But he offered the qualification, "at least over time." Lewis, and everyone else who ever feted Mugabe, was not just proved wrong about the despot "at least over time." They were wrong the minute they endorsed him.
This article is published courtesy of Los Angeles Times. James Kirchick is assistant to the editor in chief of the New Republic and reported from Zimbabwe in 2006.
|
|
|
|
| OPINIONS - OPINION |
|
 The four hard choices for Zimbabwe
By Prof Jonathan Moyo, MP
31 July 2007
AS PRESIDENT Robert Mugabe delivered his televised address officially opening the third and apparently last session of the sixth parliament on Tuesday last week, he appeared determined to keep his head when everyone else across the nation has long lost theirs due to the biting national crisis that is widening and deepening every day.
That Mugabe can still keep his head when the rest of the nation no longer can mean he is yet to grasp the gravity of the national crisis. So endemic is the unfolding crisis that national attention has moved from how to define the problem to how to resolve it.
And there are four hard choices to resolve the crisis before the nation, namely:
a military coup;
. an act of statesmanship by Mugabe to save both the country and his legacy;
. a coming together of nationalist progressive forces under a united front;
and
. a spontaneous and therefore chaotic uprising.
In objective terms, there is no doubt that one of these choices must be made if Zimbabwe is to move forward from its troubled past and current stalemate to a different dispensation. But before describing these choices that are now competing for selection, there's a need to dispense with two false choices that some vested political interests are peddling.
One false choice whose consequence would be to further widen, deepen and prolong the national crisis is Mugabe's incredulous wish to seek reelection in March 2008 under the controversial 18t constitutional amendment scheduled for debate in parliament next month. This is a false choice primarily because it has no national content since it is only a self-serving ploy that puts Zimbabwe last and Mugabe first so he can remain in power for life to enable him to escape likely prosecution for alleged crimes against humanity committed during his 27-year rule.
The propaganda around this false choice is the oft-repeated fiction that at its March 30 meeting the Zanu PF central committee endorsed Mugabe as its sole presidential candidate. Yet some of the party's senior members have been saying all along that nothing of the sort ever happened.
Since March 30, there's been an amazing if not shameful display of conspicuous deceit by patronage-seeking Zanu PF individuals and groups which have been falling on each other to further endorse Mugabe's self-serving re-election bid on the back of a central committee endorsement that never was.
Based on his 2002 tortuous campaign experience, it is obvious that Mugabe hopes to yet again use the military, national intelligence and police forces along with government ministries and departments including traditional chiefs and their headmen to win re-election in 2008.
But even so, he needs to be forewarned not to be too trusting because everyone who matters in officialdom now knows that Zimbabwe will remain in dire straits if he remains in office. Indeed, Mugabe must remember with some trepidation how with all the establishment support he almost lost the 2002 election when the situation in the country had not deteriorated to current hopeless levels. Therefore a Mugabe electoral victory in March 2008, whether achieved by fair or foul means, would necessarily be bad news that would worsen current hardships for Zimbabweans.
Another false choice being peddled in opposition circles is that Morgan Tsvangirai's faction of the MDC can or will win the presidential election in March 2008. The Arthur Mutambara faction of the MDC is realistic enough to see that the presidential stakes next March are for it already water under the bridge.
While Tsvangirai has over the years shown commendable courage as an opposition leader, his exemplary courage has been failed by his characteristically poor leadership and general lack of strategy or sound judgment. The mere fact that Tsvangirai personally presided over the split of his own party demonstrated his poor leadership and put paid to the only chance he had to be a national leader.
The damaging effect of the MDC split in electoral terms was to leave Tsvangirai without critical votes in Matabeleland and the Midlands provinces. Previous election results show that, outside Harare, Tsvangirai has not been able to get much support in the Mashonaland provinces. The same
is true in Masvingo and Manicaland provinces where his support base has dramatically declined since 2002.
Put simply, while he is weak in Matabeleland, Mugabe has more support than Tsvangirai in the Mashonaland provinces save for Harare. Given this fact along with that the public has lost confidence in Tsvangirai as a result of the MDC split plus the fact that Tsvangirai can no longer be sure about the
extent of his support in Matabeleland, one can only wonder how anyone can foresee a Tsvangirai victory in March 2008. Where would the votes come from?
In any event, while some partisan interests might find this hard to swallow, the truth is that in the current scheme of Zimbabwean politics Tsvangirai has become as inflexible and as polarising as Mugabe. Much as MDC supporters cannot vote for Mugabe under any circumstances, Tsvangirai's reduced supporters in his MDC faction will never vote for Mugabe. The national consensus now is that neither Mugabe nor Tsvangirai can take Zimbabwe forward. The feeling from across the political divide is that both need to put Zimbabwe first ahead of their personal interests.
This takes us back to the four choices mentioned earlier. If you ask any student of political science worthy of the field, they would tell you that the political economy of Zimbabwe today is pregnant with socioeconomic conditions that have typically necessitated military coups elsewhere in Africa and the developing world.
The basic cause of military coups in history has invariably been the inflexibility of ruling elites through their inability or unwillingness to accommodate dissent as an enlightened strategy of preserving their own interests. Mugabe's position that any opposition in between elections amounts to seeking illegal regime change is an example of dangerous inflexibility. Around the world, political systems that are inflexible attract military coups.
While a military coup is clearly undesirable in Zimbabwe today, it is nevertheless possible and could even become unavoidable. In the desperate circumstances currently gripping the country, the only way a military coup can be avoided is not by wishing it away or not thinking about it or condemning those who think or talk about it but by institutionalising flexibility in our constitution and national politics to get everyone, especially those in power, to put Zimbabwe first not just in their words but also in their deeds.
Another hard choice that is before the nation today is a sudden and therefore spontaneous uprising resulting in utter chaos. This choice, which Zimbabweans can make by default through inaction amid the escalating crisis, is of course undesirable as would be a military coup. But it is very possible.
A spontaneous uprising would recall the Biblical adage that where there is no vision, the people perish. In recent African history, the lack of an actionable vision has perished ordinary people in Rwanda, Somalia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Liberia, Sierra Leone, the Ivory Coast and Darfur. Zimbabwe can easily follow suit just like that.
The possibilities of a military coup and a chaotic spontaneous uprising in Zimbabwe today, both which would certainly move things forward even if in undesirable ways, can be avoided through the adoption of one of the other two choices in our midst: an act of critically needed statesmanship by Mugabe to put Zimbabwe first by retiring now or the emergence of a united front bringing together progressive nationalists from across the political divide to save Zimbabwe.
If he could understand what it means to put Zimbabwe first beyond partisan interests as he urged others to do in his Tuesday address, Mugabe would realise that it is still possible and desirable for him to step down before March 2008 by using the proposed 18th constitutional amendment to facilitate his exit and to allow for a transition that would safeguard his legacy, secure his immunity after leaving office and enable him to appoint his successor through parliament.
Zimbabwe would regenerate and move forward to a new and better dispensation with international support. This is a possible and desirable choice in Mugabe's hands. But there is more than enough reason not to leave the fate of our bleeding country in Mugabe's hands because he cannot be trusted to act like a statesman given his penchant for self-interest. It is possible and very desirable for Zimbabweans from across the political divide to come together to forge a united front of nationalist progressives to dislodge Mugabe and Zanu PF at the polls in March 2008.
If synchronised presidential and parliamentary elections take place next March and if Mugabe and Zanu PF win, the current crisis will most definitely become a catastrophe overnight and future generations will never understand why the present pool of nationalist progressives in politics, business, civil society, churches, student groups and professions failed to unite to save Zimbabwe for posterity.
*This article first appeared in the New Zimbabwe website. Professor Jonathan Moyo is a political scientist and independent MP for Tsholotsho. He can be contacted on e-mail moyoz@mweb.co.zw
|
|
|
|
| OPINIONS - OPINION |
|
 William Hague's letter on President Mugabe
16 July 2007
Earlier this year the Mugabe-led government escalated its oppression of the opposition in Zimbabwe, most prominently with the arrest and brutal beating of Morgan Tsvangerai, and the murders of opposition activists and journalists.
Since then every day brings grimmer news of state repression and an economy in freefall. Reports of rioting at shops and filling stations in the wake of a government directive for 50% food price cuts and 70% fuel price cuts, and news that more than 1,300 supermarket managers and owners have been arrested for refusing to sell their merchandise at the lower prices, suggest that the country is on the verge of economic and social collapse.
Zimbabwe is today facing impending humanitarian catastrophe. I am therefore surprised that the EU appears to be attempting to conduct business as usual, and is reportedly considering inviting President Mugabe to the EU-Africa Summit in Lisbon in December this year.
There can be no justification for such a decision. Issuing the invitation implies that the EU has no intention of developing a serious response to the crisis in Zimbabwe or reprimanding President Mugabe for his government's unacceptable actions.
While we support the Portuguese presidency's plan to make better links with Africa its priority, the fact remains that welcoming the architect of Zimbabwe's catastrophe to Lisbon and granting him such international recognition would be nothing short of a disgrace.
Do you agree that, rather than courting the dictator, a firm stand by the EU would send a powerful message of solidarity to the people of Zimbabwe? Can you confirm that the government will oppose any move to invite President Mugabe or anyone on the EU sanctions list to the Lisbon Summit?
Furthermore, will you undertake to encourage the EU to develop a more comprehensive approach to Zimbabwe, combining increased sanctions and a concerted diplomatic approach?
The EU has failed to respond effectively to the ongoing crackdown in Zimbabwe. Adding several more individuals to the EU assets freeze and travel ban do not amount to the substantial increase in pressure on the regime that is needed. Surely the time has now come for the EU to urgently impose additional European sanctions. The EU should widen the assets freeze considerably to include family members and business associates of those already on the lists, it should cancel EU visas and residence permits of those on the lists and their family members, and it should add the Governor of Zimbabwe's Reserve Bank to the EU list.
Beyond the EU, we must work with other countries that also have sanctions in place against Zimbabwe, such as the United States, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, to agree wider financial sanctions that maximise our leverage on the Zimbabwean regime. Pius Ncube, the Archbishop of Bulawayo, has repeatedly highlighted the disastrous economic plight of the country and the increase in state repression.
Despite his disastrous policies Mr Mugabe has demonstrated that he has no intention of leaving office and is seeking to extend his rule. The British government should urge Zimbabwe's neighbours to make a concerted effort to resolve the crisis and to block the extension of Mugabe's rule, making the case that the consequences of a total collapse in Zimbabwe will fall heavily upon them and their region.
Finally, the time may now be right for the International Criminal Court to take a close and detailed look at the atrocities committed under the auspices of Mr Mugabe and his regime. In light of public interest in this matter I am making this letter available to the press.
William Hague is the British Shadow Foreign Secretary. The above letter, made available to the press, was addressed to David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary.
|
|
|
|
| OPINIONS - OPINION |
|
Mugabe: Shame of Africa
By Peter Thatia
East African Standard
25 May 2006
Today, as Africa observes African Union Day, the omnipresent sense of hope and possibility ushered into the continent at the turn of the millennium continues to throb on. Most of the dictators of yesteryear are long gone and the overall economic growth hit a record last year with an average of over 6 per cent. These achievements will be put to the fore today across the continent.
The greatest threat to the African dream today remains Zimbabwe, a country where deprivation is being measured in extremes. Indeed, statistics in Africa are being churned out in a pair, i.e. Africa scores this and that, and this and that without Zimbabwe.
Zimbabwe has become a blotch in the conscience of Africa, its performance playing havoc with every statistical figure about Africa. And while Africa will be turning over a milestone, her failure to intervene in Zimbabwe will certainly be given a blackout.
In his personal website, launched in 2002 and recording over 300,000 hits so far, President Robert Mugabe makes an interesting statement about himself: "I know you love your leader as much as you love your country. I know you deserve to see what kind of a man I am. To those of you that already know me, this will simply be a joyous refresher of your cherished memories of me. To those with still unfulfilled desire to know me better, I welcome you into an intimate glimpse of Mugabe The Man."
But just how much does Zimbabweans, and indeed the world, know about Mugabe? Just how much are they willing to know about the boy who was abandoned by his father, a man who went to make a life with another woman elsewhere, when the boy was only ten years old?
Do they care about the genius who created the best education system in Africa (by 2000 Zimbabwe had the highest literacy rate in Africa at 85 per cent), or the devious schemer who went ahead to have two children with a lover 41 years his junior (whom he later married) while his wife Sally was dying with cancer?
A proud man
Robert Gabriel Mugabe is an extremely proud man. He doesn't suffer opposition gladly - whatever kind of opposition. He'd go to any lengths to wring competition at the neck - whatever the consequences. The mega-crisis in Zimbabwe did not happen in a day. The elements had been taking place for decades in readiness for an explosion bound to wreak devastating consequences. In four and a half decades of blatant betrayal and cold-blooded scheming, it is only now that casual eyes are glaring up to the truth that that the rudimental scaffolding had the character and the person of Robert Gabriel Mugabe as its overbearing totem.
Worst economy
Today, Zimbabwe is the only place in the world where luxury flats are occupied by squatters, closed stores are boarded up and rats scurry through abandoned restaurants. Life expectancy has plummeted to the world's lowest, 34 years for women (69 years at independence) and 37 for men. Catholic archbishop for Bulawayo, the courageous Pius Ncube, says even the inflation rate, which the Central Bank governor Gideon Gono puts at 3000 per cent (the world's highest), is propped up by lies. He puts the figure at over 4000 per cent. Nurses no longer go to work because a trip to work would wipe out your earnings. The national health fabric has literally collapsed.
Instructively, the Zimbabwean dollar was worth more that its American counterpart at independence. Today, the official cost of a loaf of bread is $Z875 but in reality it sells at $Z6000. In a speech delivered in Australia last month, Archbishop Ncube said that school fees in Bulawayo were $Z500,000 for the first term this year but when the students reported back for the second term the fees had doubled.
Sad paradox
Zimbabweans are escaping from their homeland in droves. According to UN reports, 109,532 Zimbabweans were deported from South Africa last year alone. Botswana deported 32,264. Soldiers sent by the government to check the tide at River Limpopo are themselves peeling off their uniforms and abandoning their weapons at the banks of the crocodile-infested river and swimming across to a better life as casual farm labourers in South Africa.
Not even in Somalia, a nation that holds the rare distinction as the only country in the world to have endured more than one and a half decades without a government, did the society collapse. Without a respite on the escalating political, social and economic crisis in Zimbabwe, the country is rapidly teetering past the point of no return. That there is no war in Zimbabwe is a fact that mars poignantly intrinsic paradoxes in the whole modern tragedy.
It is a paradox that even when Mugabe was murdering over 20,000 Ndebele people in the 1980s with the Korean-trained Fifth Brigade the world still referred to him as a statesman. It was easy for the world not to recognise the build-up, whose savagery exploded in 2000 after he lost the referendum, because the larger African spectrum was even worse. Before Mandela came into the scene, Mugabe was largely viewed as the last African hope and to a large extent acted the part. No one would have compared him to the reactionary sergeants, colonels and bandits who were running most of Africa in 1980.
Writing on the wall
The desperate manoeuvre to extend his tenure beyond the set 2008 to 2010 so as to coincide with the parliamentary elections has dealt Mugabe another blow. Recently Mbeki called him and put it to him that he was not going to agree to potentially nasty presidential general elections in neighbouring Zimbabwe in the year that he will be staging the World Cup in South Africa.
Being the only people who care about him nowadays, Mugabe obliged. To the horror of the rest of the world, his old ANC friends still continue to support him in South Africa. Indeed, after South Africa stage-managed a press conference in Harare following the 2002 poll and declared the elections fair, all the local and international journalists who were present burst out laughing. Right now the
MDC is laughing at Mbeki's quiet diplomacy. Just who will have the last laugh in next year's presidential poll remains to be seen but the writing is slowly emerging on the wall.
This article is published courtesy of Peter Thatia and East African Standard
|
|
|
|
| OPINIONS - OPINION |
|
 A way out for Mugabe
By Morgan Tsvangirai
04 May 2007
On March 11, 2007, I was arrested while attempting to attend a prayer vigil in Harare and taken to a police station where officers, whose job it is to protect the public, beat me so badly I suffered injuries to my skull and had to be hospitalized foralmost a week. My crime: trying to pray for change in Zimbabwe. The world's outcry over the past two months at the brutality exhibited by the regime of President Robert Mugabe has been heartening to the Zimbabwe people.Make no mistake, this condemnation, both in Africa and abroad, has had a huge and positive effect on the morale of those fighting for freedom.
Mr. Mugabe has ruled Zimbabwe since 1980 and since that time, we have seen inflation spiral from virtually zero to 2,300 percent, a collapse of the currency and the flight into economic exile of almost a third of our population. True, there have been worse leaders in the world. According to the Guinness Book of Records, Joseph Stalin killed more than 30 million people. Idi Amin murdered around 300,000 Ugandans while one in 10 Cambodians perished under the rule of Pol Pot. The other dictators lived out their lives in relative comfort and died of natural causes. Nevertheless the world has changed. Gen. Augusto Pinochet of Chile, propped up so shamelessly by Washington and Europe during the Cold War, ended up on trial, stripped of the immunity he had forced the Argentine government to give him in exchange for a transfer to democracy. On my own continent, the former leadership of Rwanda and Sierra Leone are in the dock, while one-time president of Liberia, Charles Taylor, is under arrest at The Hague for crimes against humanity.
These are dangerous times for dictators. I have little doubt that one reason Mr. Mugabe is so determined to stay in office until he dies (he's already 83 years old) is a fear of prosecution. In the early '80s, he sent his army into our southern province of Matabeleland, where they slaughtered thousands of people loyal to his rival, the late Dr. Joshua Nkomo. That one act would be enough to see him tried for war crimes, let alone the wide-scale murder and torture committed by his government since our party, the Movement for Democratic Change or MDC, first challenged his authority in 1999. Mr. Mugabe was not alone. Air Marshall Perence Shiri, among others, led the Matabele genocide; speaker of parliament Emmerson Mnangagwa oversaw it as minister; various heads of the feared Central Intelligence Organization or CIO, including the incumbent Didymus Mutasa must be held to account.
These individuals could be held responsible for permitting acts of torture and abuse, not to mention the wholesale displacement of an estimated 1.5 million people when their homes were bulldozed in 2005 during operation Murambatsvina(clear the trash). And that's the Catch-22. If we say we'll bring these people to justice, they will cling ever more firmly to power. Yet, if we offer them unconditional pardon, we sell out the hopes of their victims: millions of people who have a right to justice. With my body still in pain from the recent beating, I am reminded of the words of Henry Kissinger when he was secretary of state in the 1970s: "If you want to make peace, it's no good talking to your friends; you need to speak with your enemies." To this end we are willing at any time to sit down with Mr. Mugabe and his ministers and discuss a transfer to democracy, free and fair elections, an end to their rigid control of the media and a new era of freedom for Zimbabwe. After all, we have nothing to lose and polling suggests our party would win a landslide if people had the chance to vote without the rigging and intimidation that have marred recent efforts. If it took immunity from prosecution to secure change, we could talk about that. Our side comes to the table with no preconditions except that discussion must be aimed at bringing true freedom to the country. I will never be bought off by offers to join Mr. Mugabe's side, or any plan that would see a continuation of the current tyranny.
The change I talk about will come, regardless of whether Mr. Mugabe agrees to it or not. As surely as dictatorship fell in Chile, Cambodia, Liberia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone and the former Soviet Union, it will collapse in Zimbabwe. But the longer Mr. Mugabe and his allies stall that change, the greater will be the wrath of our people. There is still time for Mr. Mugabe to make a dignified exit, but not much. Beatings, torture, killings, rigged elections and control of the media may secure his position in the short term, but nothing will change the outcome. Let's pray that Africa and the world can persuade him of that before it is too late.
This article is published courtesy of the Washington Times
*Morgan Tsvangirai is president of the Zimbabwe opposition party, the Movement for Democratic Change.
The Opinion column is an open forum for topical issues pertaining to Africa. Contributions are welcomed but should not exceed 800 words. Email your Opinions to info@touchbaseafrica.co.uk The editor reserves the right to publish or reject articles.
|
|
|
|
| OPINIONS - OPINION |
|
Amnesty International Call for Africa leaders to speak out against brutality in Zimbabwe
18 April 2007
Amnesty International is deeply concerned about the continued attacks on trade unionists, human rights activists and members of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) in Zimbabwe. The organisation is calling on all African leaders, both political and civil society leaders, to speak out against human rights violations and to urge the government of Zimbabwe to respect and protect the rights of its citizens.
As Zimbabwe commemorates 27 years of independence on 18 April 2007, many of its citizens are either in police custody, nursing injuries inflicted by the police and other state security agents, or living in fear for daring to exercise their right to peaceful protest. Many are spending sleepless nights afraid of being abducted or of being subjected to torture, simply for choosing to belong to an opposition political party. Since 2000, the people of Africa and of the world over have witnessed the rapid erosion of human rights in Zimbabwe, including mass destruction of the homes and livelihoods of 700,000 people in 2005. Is it not time we all speak out with one voice?
Recently, the world witnessed systematic violations of human rights targeted at government critics in Zimbabwe. On 11 March 2007, the police in Harare shot and killed Gift Tandare, a local activist. On the same day police arrested leaders of the political opposition and other activists who tried to take part in a prayer meeting in Harare. Many of those arrested were severely beaten, amounting to torture, at Machipisa police station in Harare. The injured included Morgan Tsvangirai of the main opposition party, the MDC, who suffered a fractured skull, and Lovemore Madhuku of the National Constitutional Assembly, who suffered a broken arm. Other severely injured activists included Grace Kwinjeh and Sekai Holland who are both MDC
activists.
Police kept the severely injured activists in custody denying them access to lawyers and medical care. In total, about 50 activists were arrested for exercising their right to peaceful association and assembly. These are rights guaranteed in Section 21of the Constitution of Zimbabwe; Articles 10 and 11 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights and Articles 21 and 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Amnesty International is deeply concerned that African leaders, who are members of the African Union, have allowed Zimbabwe to operate outside the African Union and United Nations human rights frameworks. They have allowed a culture of impunity to thrive in Zimbabwe, with arrests, detention and torture now becoming a regular occurrence.
The organisation would like to see African leaders doubling their efforts to bring to an end the suffering in Zimbabwe. Central to resolving the crisis in Zimbabwe is the need to ensure that perpetrators of human rights violations are held accountable and that the victims have access to justice. Any attempt to circumvent the needs of victims will not bring a lasting solution. We are therefore urging all leaders in Africa to insist that the government of Zimbabwe implements fully the recommendations of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights in the 2002 Fact Finding Mission Report as a first step to addressing the human rights situation prevailing in the country.
|
|
|
|
| OPINIONS - OPINION |
|
The woman in me
By Grace Kwinje
10 April 2007
'What sort of woman are you Grace Kwinjeh?' 'Who do you think you are?' 'What are you trying to prove?' Questions asked by more than five baton stick wielding riot police officers as they beat me up on that fateful day at Machipisa Police Station in Harare on the 11th of March.
This was round one out of many.
Yet it was about the woman in me. It was about me as a woman and what I stand for or represent. Each blow epitomised what they feared and hated in my defiance against them. This translated into the most brutal assault or dare I say attempted murder on me, on my person, my being; that woman in me. I did not respond I stood still and took each blow as it came. I did not cry. I did not beg for mercy. None of the comrades present on that day cried or begged for mercy, none denounced the party or tried to negotiate themselves out of this horror of horrors that will never be erased from our memories. Neither will the physical or emotional scars ever heal. No amount of therapy can heal what we went through on that day.
Sekai Holland a 64 year old grandmother was called a 'whore', 'Blair's whore' to be precise. 'No I cannot be Blair's whore he is my son' she said. How dare she respond thus? Associate herself with the defiled Tony Blair? And so Sekai was danced on, interestingly by another woman. 'Iri hure raBlair rinoda varungu,' translates to 'this Blair whore loves white men'. Sekai married for 40 years to an Australian was severely assaulted several times. She broke a leg an arm and three ribs. Why because as a journalist she made the double 'choices' of marrying a white man and belonging to the opposition; for that she had to suffer. She had to be punished for going against the 'norm', the 'expected' by ZANU-PF. That woman in her was under attack verbally and physically. Her age? Not an issue.
The two young women who were with us were not spared. The young 'whores,'according to the officers, had to be taught a lesson. Together with Sekai and myself we were beaten on the buttocks. My black beret fell off and I got a beating for my blond hair. 'Hure rekuHoliday Inn rovai." "A Holiday Inn prostitute beat her up'. 'Look at the color of her hair.' The 'sins' were many. I coloured my hair blond in protest after Registrar General Tobaiwa Mudede denied me a travel document on the basis that it was a 'state security document' and not a 'right.' I was slowly being rendered stateless in my own country. And so as is the case too in opposition politics the attack on us women was more on our sexuality, we were assaulted, humiliated, demeaned in whatever way they could think of. Comically again, amongst us victims were some of the worst male philanderers, but the issue with them remained political, exposing the misogynistic character of our society. We were treated this way because we are women and nothing else.
As I reflect on, I do not regret the woman I am and the hard choices I have to make. It is for these that in my life I have often been persecuted, socially, sexually or mentally and this time I have paid an insufferably heavy price that has left deep scars on my body and soul. I challenge oppressive systems in all their forms not just to do away with Robert Mugabe's injustice, but also primitive actions by those in our midst that still place us women in the odd position, of being underdogs even in the struggle for a democratic and just society. It is a double battle for both our political freedom and emancipation, none of which can be achieved without the other, otherwise it's a half-baked revolution, similar to the one we got at independence. Over the past months I have seen myself in and out of jail on various dubious charges mostly to do with organising and leading illegal demonstrations. Once I was placed in solitary confinement at Rhodesville Police station for 48 hours. The aim here I suppose was just to traumatise me. As I sat there in that cell on my own I was afraid. Afraid of many things to do with being tortured, raped or even being killed. By the grace of God I came out not touched. A female freedom fighter can be killed at any time. In the wee hours of March 12 the military police came for me at Braeside Police Station, where I had been dumped half dead already, the night before. A search for me by family and friends was in full scale at this time. I was in a cell with two other women. One of them was actually nursing and praying for me as I was in great pain and bleeding. We heard the sound of cars outside. Foot steps then the jail door opened.
The officer in charge, Makore pointed at me and said 'uyu Kwinjeh' to four military intelligence officials. I held on to the two women I knew I was in danger. Once again in the fence of Braeside police station, I was tortured by the officers. They said they had been given orders to kill and not negotiate with civilians. This was not a joke because by this time Comrade Gift Tandare's body lay cold somewhere. May his soul rest in peace. I did not know this. The rest I leave to God and his mercy for me on that night. They asked me all sorts of questions as they beat me with short 30 centimetre really painful baton sticks. I fainted several times but each time they got me up and tortured me. Until in the end I could not stand that is when they asked me to remain seated and stretch out my legs and they beat the soles of my feet. How I got back in the cell I do not know. All I know is my life was spared. They stayed on vigil outside the fence waiting for further 'instructions'. Thank God some officials from the Lawyers for Human Rights found me before
the 'instructions' came the next day. And then it was drama after drama. Released to hospital under riot police guard; then no charges; re arrested while trying to leave the country then back to hospital under riot police guard. Eventually with Sekai Holland we made it for medical treatment here in South Africa.
I thank the sisters and brothers for the solidarity that came in the form of prayers, demonstrations, night dresses, cake, books, fruit and water. Above all for taking the risk of being associated with this kind of woman, by visiting us at the Avenues Clinic in full view of the police and CIO operatives. I will end with a quote from Paolo Coelho's 'The Zahir', "I don't regret the painful times; I bear my scars as if they were medals. I know that freedom has a high price, as high as that of slavery; the difference is that you pay with pleasure and a smile, even when that smile is dimmed by tears.'
And so the woman in me will fight on. Aluta Continua.
* Grace Kwinje is the deputy secretary for international relations in the Morgan Tsvangirai-led Movement for Democratic Change party. This article is published courtesy of Zim Online
|
|
|
|
| OPINIONS - OPINION |
|
Apr 6th 2007
Zimbabweans fed up with dreadful economy
From Economist.com
JUDGING by the pot-holes, rusting street lamps, broken traffic lights and pencil-thin residents of Harare, Zimbabwe's capital city, the former model of an African economy is at the end of its tether. The water supply fails in much of Harare as frequent electricity cuts hit. With each passing month the city is darker, a bit more decrepit and home to more child-beggars. Those with jobs are forced to walk for hours to get home, as wages no longer cover the cost of public transport. A two-day national strike over pay called by the country's trade unions that ended on Wednesday April 4th made little impression. Many workers passed on the opportunity to air their grievances and to call for a minimum wage, perhaps sensing that it would have little effect on the ruling regime. Hunger is spreading. Life expectancy has dropped to roughly 35 years as AIDS and lack of food bite. More families skip meals entirely. Any spare bit of earth is tilled, even in the city centre. Urban cemeteries and roadside verges are now planted with maize. The road to the airport is dotted with agricultural plots.
The country's bakeries are closing, unable to sell bread at the make-believe fixed prices ordered by the government. Cooking oil, among other basic commodities, can no longer be found. There are many reasons why political tension is so high in Zimbabwe right now: sharp divisions in the ruling Zanu-PF party; a series of violent attacks by police on the opposition Movement for Democratic Change this month; increasing pressure from neighbours fed up with the turmoil in the country. Recently Zambia's president, Levy Mwanawasa, likened Zimbabwe to the Titanic and called on others in the region to help bring about change there. But an underlying cause of the tension is the clapped-out economy. Hunger, frustration, joblessness and anger that a once-successful African country is falling to bits are helping to pull angry young men onto the streets. Probably more important, the economic woes are beginning to persuade close allies of Mr Mugabe that it is time for the old despot to hang up his boots.
For now the government has no idea what to do, so it prints money as fast as the presses allow. Hyper inflation is spinning out of control-it is likely to reach 5000% by the year's end. Many shops dispense with price tags. Monthly wages are spent immediately, before the notes become worthless. Unsurprisingly, the currency is dropping faster than a stone down a well. In this financial fantasy-land ATMs spit out half-a-million dollars at a time and every other man on the street trades in foreign currency. Speculation on the local stock market has become extreme as investors borrow from banks and bet on shares rising in ever greater leaps. One day, soon, notes a local economist, it will all come crashing down. For eight straight years the economy has been contracting; it has shrunk by half since 1999. The collapse of agriculture, after Mr Mugabe snatched commercial farms to give to political cronies, is one big problem. Lack of confidence in the rule of law deters investors. A once booming tourist industry is all but dead, with safari lovers deterred by violent repression. Most aid money stopped long ago.
The rapid spread of corruption does not help either. Some 3m Zimbabweans, many of the brightest and best trained, have fled the country in the past few years. More run for the border every day. The money they send home to relatives-no one knows exactly, but guesses are that $400m is returned each year-is proving to be the only lifeline for some. Where next for Zimbabwe? Political change will come before the economic sort. Most likely a scrap within the ruling party will, eventually, force Mr Mugabe to go. If a semi-decent government is formed and democratic elections are called, some sort of rebound should follow, at least if donors, tourists and investors are reassured. South Africa, especially, is likely to lead efforts to invest. But experience in other bits of Africa, such as Uganda under Idi Amin, shows that destroying an economy is done far quicker than rebuilding it. What has taken a decade or so to sink is likely to take a generation to get afloat again.
*The above article is published in Touch Base Africa courtesy of The Economist
|
|
|
|
| OPINIONS - OPINION |
|
Open letter to President Robert Gabriel Mugabe
By Marrily Runoona Kuzonyei
When it comes to our rights Mr. President, I refuse to be silenced!
Cease the reign of terror
You were appointed to serve the nation.
Instead you caged the nation.
Decades long you fed us stories
Buttering us like toast.
The age of endurance is behind the times,
We are grey with pain and fury.
Don't sit and wait to be discarded
Like a sprat in a pickle jug.
Tread on the noble heels of Mandela
The first ambassador of freedom
To liberate an entire race
Caught amid a storm with zero humidity.
I had not been born when Zimbabwe gained independence from Britain but I can vividly remember stories of events that marked independence celebrations in Zimbabwe. These were stories of jubilation, anticipation and reconciliation. You marked the peak of these celebrations as you Mr. President, Prime Minister then, stood before the entire nation to say:
"If yesterday I fought you as an enemy, you have become a friend and ally with the same national interest, loyalty, rights and duties as myself. If yesterday you hated me, today you cannot avoid the love that binds you to me and me to you. The wrongs of the past must now stand forgiven and forgotten." To the majority of Zimbabweans, this served as a landmark of a new era and a new life for the independent nation of Zimbabwe. It made me think that we Zimbabweans are one of the most civilized races of mankind, a people of a magnificent culture and principles. As I write, I can foretell the rebuke of this article by you and your faction. However, I will not be intimidated. I write not to please but to be heard. I certainly know that the truth will set free not only me, but the entire downtrodden people of Zimbabwe. Daily I have questions, questions, questions and not a single answer. These are questions directed at you Mr. President. To begin with, where is the "same national interest, loyalty and rights" you promised in your Politics of Reconciliation back in 1980?
Where is "the love" that you once said bound you to those you once fought as enemies? Sir, have you surely forgiven and forgotten or you are just a preacher fulfilling your duty to deliver? Your brutal and illegal seizure of land in 2000 has shown the worst case of racism at international level next to the Apartheid regime in South Africa. Considering that oral and written history has shown that not all whites fought against blacks during the liberation struggle and vice-versa, what therefore makes black Zimbabweans much more sons of the soil than those whites who fought on their side? Is it therefore by right or race that one can claim ownership over land in Zimbabwe today? In April 1997 you decided to compensate your faction of war veterans with a cash value of ZW$50 000. What a mockery to the real heroes of this land? I am talking of citizens who lost their lives. Of course, there were foreigners too! Did you pay them? What happened to their reward? Mr. President, I am sure as I speak, you can feel the wrath of the soil you are stepping on. From the look of things, our forfeited independence did not bring a considerable change to the rights and lives of many Zimbabwean especially women. The majority of Zimbabweans still lack protection from the law. They cannot to live peacefully in their own country; hence they are seeking refuge in foreign lands. Isn't this the same country they fought to liberate? Mr. President, you have turned the entire country into a field of repression and violence. The streets have become fields of bloodshed, constant shooting and beating. Health, education and the quality of life have deteriorated immeasurably. If you fought the liberation struggle with a cause, what has become of this noble cause? Did you fight to build or destroy Zimbabwe? What therefore are you doing to build this nation? Surely, it strikes me to the bone to realize that the turmoil of my people is your lullaby. To the majority of Zimbabweans, it remains a heart breaking encounter to accept that while our independence has been not more than a few minutes of glory, the brutal and illegal acquisition of land by a minority under the guise of the majority remains a humiliating reduction in the dignity of the current government.
Marrily is a Zimbabwean Author and Poet currently living in Germany and writes for TheSalad Magazine
www.TheSaladmagazine.com "A Premier Magazine for Southern African women who want to be HEARD"
The Opinion column is an open forum for topical issues pertaining to Africa. Contributions are welcomed but should not exceed 800 words. Email your Opinions to info@touchbaseafrica.co.uk The editorial board reserves the right to publish or reject articles.
|
|
|
|
| OPINIONS - OPINION |
|
Zimbabwe - violent or peaceful change?
By Trevor Ncube
THE escalation of violence in Zimbabwe over the past week is a sure sign of a panicking regime and the situation threatens to deteriorate unless regional and international diplomatic initiatives are hastened to find a peaceful solution to the crisis. One thing is clear though; Mugabe has no intention of stepping down for a number of reasons. His own explanation is that the ruling party Zanu PF is currently divided over the succession issue and needs him to face the opposition. This is a crisis of his own making for he has not put in place a succession plan or created an environment that would allow for the emergence of a new leader. However, the real reason for Mugabe’s refusal to step down appears to be his fear of prosecution for human rights abuses perpetrated against innocent Zimbabweans since Independence in 1980. These include the Matabeleland massacres, the violent land invasions that saw hundreds of white commercial farmers and black opposition activists killed, and the Murambatsvina atrocities which the United Nations report recommended should be referred to The Hague. Ironically, Mugabe continues to add onto these crimes through the current round of violent attacks on opposition activists. Playing on his mind must be the recent prosecution of former Liberian President Charles Taylor, for crimes committed while he was in power, Nicolae Ceausescu’s downfall in Romania in 1989 and the recent events in Iraq. Thus, the main reason for Mugabe staying in office is not because he has a vision of a better Zimbabwe under his leadership but that the office offers him protection from prosecution for human rights abuses. For the sake of progress, Zimbabweans might have to consider guaranteeing him immunity under certain conditions. Zimbabweans have to choose between continued violence and pardoning Mugabe if he leaves office now. This demands political maturity and the international community will have to take a cue from Zimbabweans. Should this immunity be extended to all his close associates? This could be worth considering in exchange for full disclosures of all documented human rights abuses. It is important to realise that unless this is done, Mugabe is prepared to use violence against all Zimbabweans calling for change towards a more democratic dispensation. Zimbabweans must be prepared to pay that ‘ransom’ to be freed from Mugabe's clutches.
With Mugabe gone, we can then contemplate the future and its challenges. As part of the transition to a new Zimbabwe, we will have to draw a line in the sand and ensure that we don't allow another Mugabe to emerge from our midst. It is instructive that so far violence, as a political tool has worked perfectly for Mugabe. He has orchestrated the violence against the weak and divided Movement for Democratic Change as a way of coaxing his party to eliminate an ineffectual opposition and help him purchase a few more years in office. The violence is also intended to send a clear message to those within his party who are opposed to him that they could face similar treatment from his band of hired thugs. It appears that for the time being though, that the two Zanu-Pf factions opposed to Mugabe are realising that there is no national purpose served by Mugabe's selfish political survival project. But calls by British Prime Minister Tony Blair this week for more action against Zimbabwe play into Mugabe's hands and force his protagonists into an uncomfortable corner with him. It is now common cause that two powerful factions have emerged within, Zanu PF which want to see Mugabe leave office. The more powerful of these is led by retired general Solomon Mujuru whose wife, Joyce, is one of Mugabe's two vice-presidents. A year ago this faction was on the ascendance but has clearly fallen out of favour as evidenced by Mugabe's attack on Mrs Mujuru's ambitions during events around his 83rd birthday celebrations. The flavour of the moment is the Emmerson Mnangagwa-led faction. Mugabe is making this faction believe they are his preferred heirs, as a way of dealing with the Mujuru camp. It would be political folly for the Mnangagwa camp to get false comfort from Mugabe's political embrace. He will dump them as soon as they become a real threat and once he feels secure again. Politics in Zimbabwe is about Mugabe and nothing else. And Mugabe has his own faction fighting for his survival in the top echelons of the army, the police and the intelligence services. It must be noted however that there exist deep divisions within the middle and lower ranks of the uniformed forces which mirror the three factions in the party. Two things are instructive as Zimbabweans ponder the way forward. The first of these is that the defeat of Mugabe's bid to shift presidential elections to 2010, instead of 2008 was delivered by forces for self-serving change within Zanu PF and had little to do with pressure from the opposition or the international community. Also, the weakness of the opposition MDC, unfortunate as it is, removed an outside threat to Zanu PF, focusing the party on internal dynamics. The factions have since realised that Mugabe is the problem. This means that Zanu PF's internal dynamics might be key in finding a way out of Zimbabwe's crisis and that the MDC might not be the place to look for relief. While this is an unpopular view, it is a pragmatic one informed by the current weakness of the MDC and the potential offered by progressive forces in the ruling party. Equally important is the realisation that Zimbabwe's problems are far bigger than Zanu PF and the MDC put together. We need to disabuse ourselves of the notion that talks between the MDC and Zanu PF will solve Zimbabwe's problems. A durable solution requires getting a broad section of Zimbabweans talking to each other about their problems and structuring the future together. This is clearly not a winner-takes-all strategy but a process of negotiating how Zimbabwe's future is going to be ordered. For this project to have wider purchase, trade unions, the churches, business and all other civic society players will have to be involved. What Zimbabwe needs from the region and the international community is an honest broker who commands respect from all players. Zimbabweans have become so polarised that it would be difficult to find anybody internally to play this role. First, there needs to be a realisation that we need to talk to each other, followed by agreement on the agenda. The latter appears daunting but should really be the easiest because Zimbabwe is sick and needs fixing urgently. We need to tear up the Lancaster House constitution and start afresh in fashioning a progressive rights-based founding law. We would then need to agree on an electoral law and the rules of engagement and invite the international community to help in running a democratic election whose outcome would form an important bedrock for the future.
Trevor Ncube is the Chief Executive of the South African newspaper, Mail & Guardian.
The Opinion column is an open forum for topical issues pertaining to Africa. Contributions are welcomed but should not exceed 800 words. Email your Opinions to info@touchbaseafrica.co.uk The editorial board reserves the right to publish or reject articles.
|
|
|
|
| OPINIONS - OPINION |
|
Mugabe 's big lie can only go so far
By Asher Tarivona Mutsengi
The world must realize one thing; President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabqwe will try and justify his actions no matter how wrong he is, using propaganda-the big lie. More often than not, tactfully constructed and spiced with some credibility, his big lie has worked. That is the main reason African leaders are slow to condemn him.Recent events, in which there was a third attempt on the life of Morgan Tsvangirai the leader of the Movement for Deemocratic Change (MDC) has opened the world's eyes to what has been going on for years. The only difference is that this time Mugabe wanted to prove to the world that he is not ashamed of showing a battered leader of the opposition, perhaps in order to send a strong message to MDC supporters that ‘if we can do this to your leaders; what more can we do to you?’ As expected, Mugabe went on the defence to claim that Tsvangirai broke the law that prohibits association and was resisting arrest! If the truth be told, Tsvangirai was not even at the venue of the prayer meeting, he was forcibly removed from his car and beaten when he drove to a police station to inquire about the arrested MDC members. When this argument did not hold any water Mugabe’s government began attacking the media.
They claimed that the international media lies. Zimbabwe’s Information minister, Sikhanyiso Ndlovu even claimed that Tsvangirai was not beaten. Then there was an incident in which a police station was allegedly fire bombed and two female officers injured. It later transpired that the two officers, were in fact burnt after a paraffin stove exploded in their room while they were preparing a meal! Immediately after the incident, the government was quick to blame the opposition for petrol-bombing police stations and instigating violence. They claimed the media ignored that incident and paid attention to opposition beatings. Zimbabwe's Central Intelligence Agency (CIO) is renowned for their expertise in creating smokescreen situations while they carry out heinous crimes. A good example is the manner in which they planted arms caches in Matebeleland in the early 1980’s. They subsequently “discovered the weapons” and accused ZAPU, then an opposition party led by the later Joshua Nkomo, of planning a civil war. What followed was a massacre of over 80, 000 civilians in Matebeleland and the Midlands. The international media such as the CNN and BBC are banned from reporting from Zimbabwe. What is the government hiding?
The world must also understand there is no independent press in Zimbabwe. The main daily paper The Daily News was banned and its printing press bombed. What remains are government funded or controlled media, The Herald, The Chronicle, Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation and all radios stations in the country which churn out ZANU PF propaganda. The consistent message from the Zimbabwe government propaganda machinery is that the UK wants to recolonize Zimbabwe, and that the MDC party is their agent. Some rural folks in Zimbabwe, most of them illiterate and beneficiaries of the land grab, sincerely believe this because they do not have access to alternative news. But surprisingly, some African leaders seem to believe that as well. One could perhaps excuse Zimbabwean peasants for believing the “big lie” since they are more easily hoodwinked and are at the mercy of the government which pays the salaries of their chiefs and has the power to deny them food when, as is the case at present, there are food shortages in the country. The more educated urban dwellers can see only too well through the “big lie.” Their refusal to be conned frustrates Mugabe who has decide finally to order a crackdown on the opposition. Mugabe also maintains that sanctions are to blame for the country's woes- another big lie! The economy of Zimbabwe started collapsing way before there were any sanctions on the country. In any case the only sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe are targeted at the assets of the ruling clique in Zimbabwe and in preventing Mugabe and his family from going shopping in Europe!
Mugabe himself is the author of Zimbabwe's demise. In 1997, facing demands from war veterans he printed billions of dollars to quell imminent uprising and dished the money to war veterans. What followed was what is known as Black Friday in Zimbabwe. The Zimbabwe dollar crashed against all currencies in the world and inflation sky rocketed. But of course this is conveniently forgotten by the government when it lists the reasons for the downward spiral in the economy. So here we have Mugabe and friends substantiating their actions through propaganda. You may argue that all governments at some stage use propaganda. But what is worrisome in the case of Zimbabwe is that some Africans leaders are falling for it! However much these leaders want to stand with Mugabe while he unleashes terror on the Zimbabwean public, the day is fast approaching when the people of Zimbabwe will be free! Hope is not lost and is all we have in the face of improbable odds. One day people will realize the real nature of Robert Gabriel Mugabe. He will not deceive his people, his African counterparts and the world forever!
Asher Tarivona Mutsengi is a Zimbabwean and writes from Edmonton,Canada. He can be contacted at ashermutsengi(at)yahoo.com
The Opinion column is an open forum for any topical issues pertaining to Africa. Contributions are welcomed but should not exceed 800 words. Email your Opinions to info@touchbaseafrica.co.uk The editorial board reserves the right to publish or reject articles.
|
|
|
|
| OPINIONS - OPINION on AU |
|
Is AU - just a talking shop?
By Brian Moyo
OVER the past few days many writers have expressed angst at the lack of AU condemnation of the Zimbabwean government over its treatment of the opposition politicians. One writer even quoted a charter of The New Partnership Deal for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) which states: "Good governance [is] a basic requirement for peace, security and sustainable political and socio-economic development." Well, that may be the case in theory, but it is too much to expect it in practice in Africa. The record of broken promises speak for themselves. Take your mind back to the recent bi-annual summit of the African Union (AU) in Ethiopia which ended with the chairman Alpha Oumar Konare, calling for a "responsible" Africa, one that is "more self-reliant" and breaks away from "always asking" for aid. "An Africa that takes responsibility for itself can forge ahead with development. We are a rich continent with enormous potential. We should struggle for self-reliance as we struggled against apartheid (in South Africa) -- with the same sense of commitment and solidarity. Then we shall achieve our development goals," Konare said. Perhaps, the cheers Konare received for such a sensible resolution will still be ringing in his ears weeks after the heads of African presidents and ministers who accompanied them have gone back to their countries to sit in their air conditioned offices waiting for yet another conference in which to rub shoulders with like minded officialdom. I will not be so presumptions as to suggest that every single man and woman who attended the AU summit in Addis Ababa knew even as Konare spoke, that the resolution uttered with so much passion will go in the way of other resolutions before it – gather dust in the government shelves without any follow up action. Needless to say, that is not Konare’s fault. Any journalist who has attended AU or any other conferences to do with Africa, will tell you that a lot of hot air is blown about by men with bulging tummies and consciences more frozen than the rapidly shrinking arctic. From the moment when serving presidents or Prime Ministers descend from their planes onto the red carpets to be ushered into waiting Mercedez Benz’s the whole razzmatazz takes a life of its own! I winced when I read a report recently by a reporter alluding to the contrast in the lifestyles of the leaders who attended the AU summit and the deprived citizens of Addis Ababa. He wrote: “If they had gazed from their rooms in the palatial Sheraton Hotel they would have been confronted with the reality of the majority of their people. Most windows overlook a slum just outside the boundary wall of the hotel. Police kept Addis Ababa's begging children and adults crippled by disease at a distance from the heads of state, clearing the streets as the leaders whizzed through Africa's fourth largest city in their convoys of luxury cars.”
Years ago when I attended one such conference in Addis Ababa, I was taken aback by these seemingly unrelated worlds of the politically powerful African class and the masses who stared at the passing limousines and Mercedez Benz, with puzzled expressions! One could see straight away that the general public had no clue about the nature of the circus in town! Perhaps the only people in Addis Ababa who had a “rough idea” about the besuited ladies and gentlemen clutching expensive briefcases, were hotel staff. Yes, this class of worker, all over African capitals, has borne witness to the continent’s chattering class gorging themselves on lavish dishes paid for by some donor agencies. Believe it or not these conference are much sought after by senior and junior government officials in every African country. They provide the rare opportunity of extracting travel and food allowances in foreign currency, from the sponsors! But let’s get back to the main point: why are African leaders so fond of making resolutions which they don’t keep? By all accounts, most pledges made at AU summits do not translate into action on the ground. Two years ago in Abuja, Nigeria, AU leaders promised to spend 15 percent of their national budgets on health. So far only two countries have kept their word. And another resolution taken 18 months ago in Libya by African countries to spend10 percent of their countries' budgets on agriculture, has largely been ignored. The list of unfulfilled resolutions is as long as a walking stick if one bothers to track back to the days of the Organisation of African Unity! So what is it about the psyche of Africa which keeps producing power hungry leaders whose ideas seem to run on half a tank all the time? I believe the answer lies in the mindset of the African politician. You wonder if there is such a thing? Yes, there is. It goes back all the way to that distant past; to the colonial period. Psychologists will tell you that the first objective of the coloniser is to erect a paradigm of values and principles around the idea that his culture is superior to that of the colonised populace. The coloniser can do this either by breaking the spine of the cultural habits and belief systems of his subjects or by inundating them with the cultural and intellectual products of his own world to the extent that their daily lives are dominated by his cultural reference points in everything they do. This has long term consequences. Every African dictator, past or present, has displayed an amazing penchant for the finer things in life; expensive cars, private jets, Seville Row suits and huge mansions. This is not surprising because the colonial masters from whom they took over the reins of power, were themselves fond of such ostentatious ness. They also inherited another habit from colonisers - that the winner takes all and woe betie him if he doesn't treat his adversaries mercilessly. The longer African dictators rule, the less connected they become to the electorate. They prefer to cocoon themselves in a value system not shared by their people, while endorsing themselves as saviours of their countries, even while wrecking the economy. So, to expect AU leaders to come out strongly against a fellow African president would be tantamount to them cutting their own noses to spite their faces! Like birds of the same feather - they simply flock together!
Brian Moyo is the editor of www.touchbaseafrica.co.uk which is published under the aegis of Diaspora Netwroking Ltd. The Opinion column is an open forum for any topical issues pertaining to Africa. Contributions are welcomed but should not exceed 800 words. Email your Opinions to info@touchbaseafrica.co.uk The editorial board reserves the right to publish or reject articles.
|
|
|
|
| OPINIONS - Opinion |
|
Of dictators and violence
By Brian Moyo
Zimbabwe is on the front page news again; with mainstream newspapers and TV stations in the UK allocating considerable column inches and air time to alert the world about the barbarism of Robert Mugabe’s regime. The story that has catapulted the once economically sound southern African country into the mainstream media and captured the imagination of the public as well, is none other than the treatment of the Movement for Democratic Change leader Morgan Tvangirai by the Zimbabwean police. Images of Tvangirai’s puffed up face – evidence of a brutal beating by the police in custody have been flashed across the world television screens, rightly evoking condemnation of President Robert Mugabe’s government by a plethora of world leaders and human rights organisations. Sadly very little condemnation of Mugabe has come from African leaders.
I couldn’t help wondering when I saw Tvangirai’s swollen face on TV whether the leader of the UK Conservative party David Cameroon seeing the same image must have thought: ‘Boy ain’t I lucky to be an opposition leader in the UK where I am at liberty to criticise Tony Blair policies without fear of being beaten up by the Metropolitan police or being detained and tortured by the MI5?’ Might Cameroon’s musings perhaps have carried him further as he imagined how he would react if Tony Blair suddenly banned all political activity, revoked Ken Livingstone’s power as Mayor of London, and for good measure, banned Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation from reporting in the UK! And finally telling Gordon Brown who expects to step into his shoes in June, that “there is no vacancy at No 10.”
One can reasonably assume that such a scenario is unthinkable to Cameroon, even during his most absurd moments of fantasising. By the same token, it is unthinkable for British voters to imagine Tony Blair picking up the phone and ordering the Commissioner of the Metropolitan police to stop a rally organised by the Conservative party or Liberal Democrats from taking place in Hyde Park, simple because they will say unfavourable things about New Labour! Yet in Zimbabwe, and in much of Africa such powers are taken for granted by governments who don’t consider themselves accountable to the electorate. Mugabe is quiet happy to declare that Zimbabwe is a democracy. Yet as soon as MDC shows signs of gaining the upper hand, by, for instance, winning control of urban councils, he moves with the speed of lightning to dismantle the councils and replace them with an administration appointed by his party, ZANU-PF. One can give many instances in which Mugabe has denied political space to the opposition, often using as much force as illustrated by the beatings of Tsvangirai’s and other political activists last week. Unfortunately similar incidences in the past have not grabbed the attention of the world as much as the latest episode. Zimbabwean political refugees in the UK who have been holding on to the lapels of immigration officials intent on sending them back home, will have been both amazed and relieved by the strongly worded British response to the latest bout of crassness by Mugabe’s government. Most would have said: “We have been telling them that our fears of being sent home are genuine!”
Those with long memories will recall how muted British criticism was when president Mugabe sent the fifth brigade to Matebeleland in 1984, ostensibly to rout political dissidents. The Korea trained unit however ended up killing thousands of people throughout Matebeleland and the Midlands. If Britain and other western powers want to see genuine democracy flourishing in equal measure across the world, it should be prepared to take a tough stand on any nation with a human rights record less than its own. Too many past dictators in Africa have flourished precisely because they were not seen as a threat to British or USA interest. Western powers looked away while Arap Moi, Hastings Banda, Sani Abacha and Mobutu tortured political activists whose only crime was to desire the level of democracy enjoyed by western citizens.
Dictators grow in stature, in self belief and in the righteousness of their actions; precisely because no tough action was taken against their original vile act. Mugabe himself enjoyed patronage with the highest in the British establishment, (he even hosted a dinner for the Queen in London) long after the Fifth brigade had wrecked havoc in Matebeleland. Was such accolade supposed to serve as a warning that he was regarded as a pariah by the British?
As Tsvangirai said on BBC radio news on 16 March: “Freedom is not cheap. It is only when people lose their freedom that they realise how precious it is.” Many people will rightly applaud Tsvangirai and scores of other political activists who have put their lives at stake to bail out millions of their fellow Zimbabweans from the iron grip of a dictator who lives under the illusion that he has a God given right to impoverish the country and rule with complete disdain for human rights, forever.
Brian Moyo is the editor of Touch Base Africa which publishes under the aegis of Diaspora Networking Ltd
Join the debate on issues pertaining to Africa by emailing your views and opinions to info@touchbaseafrica.co.uk
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
