I wonder if it is just me, but i purposed to soak in as much of the excitement of the 2010 World Cup as I can. I have been to five matches so far, and people that i know who are quite enlighted have been to none. As one controversial blogger would ask, What is it with (us) South Africans?
One of the highlights was taking my son to the stadium in Cape Town, the maginificent Green Point Stadium. After a long day the boy was obvioulsy tired and slept through the first half but i am sure what he say overally was an eye opener for him. I hope he gets the bug and decides to be a professional footballer.
Well, the highlight for me was obviously the Ghana - Germany game, where the end result was a happy one for everyone since both teams progresssed. It was a happy moment.
All in all, i have been to five games so far, and I salute all things african in this world cup:
1. Ghana for progressing to the next round
2. The Vuvuzela for being a nuisance to our un-schooled visitors (whom i must say seem to be catching on quick alright!)
3. The Calabash, Soccer City Stadium
More to come as I must definitely see one or two more matches.
That Bafana should break our hearts should not really have come as a surprise, but we had managed to delude ourselves that, maybe miracles could happen and hoping against hope, we believed for the nigh impossible.
What I experientially discovered long ago is that God is not really keen on sports, and will not necessary answer your prayers for your underperforming team to deliver much with little.
So even though i am a very religious kind, when it comes to sport i look at the cold hard facts and never really waste my time believing or even basing my support on mere hope. I base my support for favourite footy team (Man Utd) for example on a solid performance of many years. I know they will disappoint once in a while, but once so often i have something to cheer.
Not so with Bafana, sending a whole nation into inconsolable grief. But i say, it is self inflicted. This team was failing to beat any team of good reputation until dubious friendlies began to be put up and yea, the team got a few wins and went on a no losing streak of 13 games, until yesterday.
But i say, it should not have come as a surprise, at all. This team is just technically not up to it.
Until the time South Africa learns to buy foreigners and give them Citizenship, these KFC chowing bunch of sissies and pansies will never get us anywhere (well, i speak from a point of adoption).
I rest my case, hype yourselves again for the next tourney and then come crashing again to mother earth. Reminds me of dope addiction, in a funny way.
The World Cup must continue nonetheless, so I say, lets adopt Brazil and carry on! (Our colors and theirs, well kinda of match, don’t they?)
February 11 marks the 20th anniversary of the release of Nelson Mandela from over twenty-seven years of incarceration under Apartheid South Africa.
Mandela was many people’s hero on his release, black and white alike in South Africa. When you read the papers in this nation and listen to the radio and television, the nostalgia that little things such as speeches he made, photos of him that were taken then, calls he made etc have people drooling over the enigma of a mortal fast approaching sainthood status.
Mandela’s legacy has already surpassed immortality status. Even while he lives, his famed leadership and how he guided his nation on a path of reconciliation, reconstruction and re-integration of all peoples of South Africa is already a thesis many believe could be studied and researched on by scholars for many years to come.
What is more, his influence continues to be felt in politics even while he has completely gagged himself from commenting on political matters unless his hand is forced. Leaders that have come after him cannot do anything about his ghost that hovers above them and behind them everywhere they go and in everything they do; they have to contend with comparisons to Madiba. Voluntarily therefore, they all nicodemously seek his advice and direction whenever they can.
Mugabe must look at these reports with his fading, failing eyes and wish for what could have been. If Mugabe had done a ‘madiba’ at the right timing, my proposition is that he would have had a far more reaching legacy than Mandela. I say this because while Mandela and the ANC had somewhat to depend on the ‘generosity’ of the Afrikaaner leadership which had Mandela describing F.W. De Klerk as ‘a man of integrity’ upon his release only to retract the statement later, Mugabe and his guerrillas were on the verge of overrunning Ian Smith before they were forced into the Lancaster House negotiations by Samora Machel, Kenneth Kaunda and other Frontline States leaders.
Together with Nkomo’s ZIPRA, ZANLA had waged an effective war in Rhodesia and they were looking at nothing short of total victory. Of course Umkonto weSizwe (MK) did do guerrilla style sabotage and other ‘war’ attacks against Apartheid government establishments. The Afrikaaner government apart from crippling international pressure, isolation and sanctions did want a level of peace from the increasingly effective attacks against the white population and government establishments by MK. I have my doubts however how much of a chance they stood of taking over South Africa just by protracted guerrilla warfare.
;
On assuming power, both leaders were faced with similar situations. Both leaders embarked on wooing their erstwhile enemies, preaching and practicing reconciliation. I even suspect Madiba borrowed a leaf or two from Mugabe who had done it before more than a decade earlier. Both pleasantly surprised the white citizens and investors in their countries by pledging to overlook the past and focussing on building a nation for all citizens, regardless of their colour. For this, both received international recognition and acclaim, Mugabe being awarded Knigthood of the British Empire, and Mandela receiving the Nobel Peace Prize with De Klerk (1993).
Then Mandela did the ‘Madiba’, which is where the similarities end. Mandela did one five year term as national and party president of the ANC. Even in his time, he clearly devolved power to younger men in his party, worthy of mention being one Thabo Mbeki. It is a public secret that Mbeki did much of the governing as Vice-President leading to his eventual succession both in the ANC and in government.
Mandela did not allow power, sweet power to get to his head. He let go. If anyone could be said to have deserved power, after 27 years ‘dying for his nation’ in prison, Mandela would have deserved it above everyone else. But the pragmatic leader let go, and thereby accelerated his ascendancy to becoming an unparalleled icon in international politics, mentioned in the same breath with the Mahatma Ghandi’s of this world.
In contrast, before this time, during and well after, Mugabe did a ‘Bob’. Mugabe created a web of intrigue and deceit around himself whereby his followers in Zanu PF came to believe none of them could ever be a good leader in his lifetime. He effectively killed the possibility of succession from within his party, which caused some Zimbabweans to lose hope of change from within, and ultimately formed effective opposition. The presence of opposition, from the time of ZANLA and the contrived dissidents in Matebeleland, to the robust challenge of Morgan Tsvangirai’s MDC, produced the worst in Mugabe.
Mugabe committed human rights abuses in dealing with threats to his hold on power, which was never on his agenda to let go for one day. With the help of Edison Zvobgo, constitutionally he had entrenched his leadership for life, as long as he could win an election, never mind the means. Thus Mugabe progressively moved from being an iconic symbol of the perfect African Liberator to becoming a plain vindictive, thieving, paranoid, murderous dictator and oppressor of unparalleled proportions against his citizens, both black and white.
In the past decade as the challenge to his power became more robust, Mugabe went into overdrive to bring down a nation he could not bear to hand over to any other leader, whether from his party or from the Moon. Most Zimbabweans, including those in the opposition, have since resigned themselves to waiting on nature to take its course; Mugabe’s hold on both power and the nation appears unshakeable.
Mugabe progressively moved from being His Excellency, the Hon. President of Zimbabwe R.G. Mugabe, to President Mugabe, then Mugabe - now is plain ‘Bob’. His handlers painfully noticing this trend have tried contriving new titles for him. It is inconceivable that you could find a grade 4 pupil in Soweto refer to Madiba as ‘Nedza’, being a nickname on his first name Nelson. But every kid that can speak in Zimbabwe will tell you stories about ‘Bob’ and ‘Gire’, nickname for the half-his-age wife Grace.
How will history judge and compare these two men? Bob’s supporters will argue how he has empowered black Zimbabweans with land formerly owned by White Zimbabweans and now with 51% of companies’ shares owned by the same group of citizens.
I suggest we do not have long to wait, indeed history is unfolding before our very own eyes.
It would be wrong to ignore the death of the mother figure of the latest struggle for Zimbabwe, for the New Zimbabwe. She was taken in the prime of her life, when all those things she has fought for, stood for and prayed for were all beginning to bear fruit.
For everyone who is married and yet has a risky job, profession or vocation as that which Tsvangirai has, you would agree with me that resistance at home incapacitates a man or woman from reaching their full potential, or if they are too strong willed to have their way anyway without winning over the support of their spouse, it often leads to such men (or women) having broken homes. That Susan Nyaradzo Tsvangirai was apparently by the side of her husband in all his tribulations meant that she should also have reaped somewhat the fruits of what she toiled for.
On the other note, many will have noticed that her six children are now mostly in their productive adult stages, maybe with the exception of a few. It is at this time that one slowly begins to wean off their children from material and financial support which would have so strained a parent for a great deal of time. Some children even begin to support their parents. Besides weaning off support, children at this time begin to marry and get married, a joyful experience for most parents. I wonder if she had had that joy yet before she passed on.
I have a few observations to make about this tragic death. It could as well have been an accident, or a carefully planned attempt on Tsvangirai’s life. I will personally believe that it was accident until fresh evidence arises. The reason I will conclude that it was an accident is the alarming frequency of accidents on the road in question, caused by trucks in particular and other speeding vehicles. If you travel say from Beitbridge to Harare on any day, you will most likely see evidence of a few crashes such as happened on Friday, usually fatal. And if you notice what I have noticed, such accidents usually happen on a straight patch of the road, like that Mhondoro-Ngezi turnoff. Every time I successfully complete this journey, I observe a few minutes of silent prayer to really thank God for travelling mercies.
My first observation is therefore that the state of Zimbabwe’s roads must be addressed as a matter of urgency. We notice this accident particularly only because it involves a high profile individual, but trust me, many families have grieved because of the poor state of our roads, in some cases entire families being wiped out. I remember a few years ago when a bus accident killed school children and teachers from Masvingo. A memorial service was later arranged by a group of churches in Masvingo where President Mugabe and his entourage were invited. I remember Mugabe’s speech where he said plans had been on the cards for a long time for the widening of our major roads, and vowing that such accidents cannot be allowed to continue.
Well, there was a feeble attempt to expand the road, from around Mbare to Skyline, and that was it. And I mean all our major roads. The Beitbridge – Bulawayo road has a patch of dust road that has been under construction for the better part of ten years, and boasts serious potholes; nay, craters. As the new government comes in, can we have a serious programme of rehabilitation and improvement of our road network? The good part is, it does not have to cost the government much. All they would need to do is to offer a private contractor like the BaKwena in South Africa who build roads, run and maintain them while collecting tolls. They would build private roads that are wider and more secure while the state roads remain in place, for those who would rather not pay tolls.
In Zimbabwe, however, such projects are frustrated simply because some of these players do not pay bribes, and so government ministers would rather there was no road if the company he awards a contract won’t buy him a Mercedes or pay some other stupid bribe. A lot of public infrastructure can be improved this way, in some cases the facilities can be transferred to the Government after an agreed period.
My second observation is that despite her contribution to the new dispensation of Zimbabwe in standing by Morgan Tsvangirai, nobody in government dared suggest that maybe Susan should be a heroine to be buried at the Heroes Acre. I mean, if Sally was granted national hero status by standing with Mugabe while mostly in her country of origin during his incarceration and all, where is the difference with Susan? Unless of course we are saying even Morgan is no hero of Zimbabwe either, and that if he had died as well we would have dug two graves in Buhera? I have always suggested we will need to exhume everybody at Heroes ‘ Acre and rebury by a criteria determined by the people, otherwise the history of this nation is being held hostage by a criminal cabal. I suggest we lay down the criteria of who becomes a national hero of Zimbabwe in the new Constitution, and not leave it to a few morally bankrupt individuals to decide from time to time.
My third observation is that our political leadership have had terrible fortunes with their spouses, very much to the detriment of the citizens. No wonder many deeply and genuinely mourn Susan Tsvangirai. Many in Zimbabwe are prepared to bet with their lives that if Sally Mugabe had been alive, Mugabe would long have retired to his Zvimba village latest by about 1995. Unfortunately, she passed away on 27th January 1992. Mugabe went on to marry a much younger and more ambitious woman in Grace Marufu: and the rest, as they say, is history. One cannot help but wonder how Tsvangirai’s remarrying will affect both his political career; and with it the fortunes of the Zimbabwean citizens. I know our culture is against such talk in these circumstances, but I am merely expressing the thoughts of millions.
My final observation is, Gono should use this funeral to reflect on his legacy. Firstly, it should remind him that we all die at some point, usually when we are least prepared to and when we least expect it. One cannot therefore assume they will have time in the future to correct their legacy. Gono has to right the wrongs he has perpetrated on the people of Zimbabwe by allowing them room to move on. How in his conscience does he continue to stay in his job when he knows that he is probably the major stumbling block to economic relief needing to come into the country for the betterment of every Zimbabwean? Those with power to help us have explicitly said so, that he must go. Political brinkmanship must have its limits, and at the end of the day, it is not about his principal wanting him to stay– it is about his own moral rectitude. His principal will be judged separately.
Gono is a highly qualified and able individual and would not struggle to get a job that makes him remain comfortable. Why, he could still take up his World Bank offer if at all it genuinely existed in the first place. He must not behave like some of these guys in politics who’s CVs read Zanu PF under ‘work experience’ and who outside Zanu PF would find they are unemployable. The point is, if you become a stumbling block to the progress of the common man – move out of the way.
Surely the worst of his reproach would have been to be chased away from Susan’s funeral for all his gloating about his extra-terrestrial efforts to keep the economy of Zimbabwe afloat. I mean, a funeral is a most sombre thing; even quarrelling relatives usually bury the hatchet for the duration thereof. If people cannot stomach you even at such a time, it is time to let go of whatever you are holding, even if its witchcraft. People are very quick to forgive and forget, and if what he really wants is political power, he then can always have a chance to rebound later.
I was thrilled with an online article I read in the Zimbabwe Times (27/02/09) about a clash between Webster Shamu and Nelson Chamisa over the control of the Communications department. The latter prevailed over the former, categorically telling him to buzz off his turf. The instigator was none other than the infamous George Charamba who whimpered off first from the heated exchange.
What is also instructive is that the NetOne workers were on Chamisa’s side, to the extent where Shamu felt embarrassed and admitted some other people were trying to use him. He knew he was playing a political game but this time round Chamisa stood him up and he had no answer.
This then must be the answer to MDC in this mortal game of death that they have engaged with Zanu PF. The law of the jungle needs apply: no quota asked, no quota given. The MDC must proceed with the business of ruling within their sphere of influence according to the GPA. Let Zanu PF do the complaining and let MDC dare the President to fire the Ministers or Prime Minister.
Let us start with the office of the Prime Minister. Mugabe is always doing a fait accompli knowing that open confrontation maybe impossible and decisions difficult to reverse. Well, fair and good. Why does the Prime Minister not do the same? For example, instead of waiting for the imposition of the permanent secretaries, Tsvangirai should have come up with a list of his governors, permanent secretaries and ambassadors etc long ago; and publicly announced these. If it is by quota, fair and good, let us know those names representing the MDC quotas and leave Zanu PF to their quota. Particularly in all ministries under MDC, chekumirira hapana, fambai nebhora machinda! (There is nothing to wait for, make your moves now).
Even now, let the MDC announce Permanent Secretaries to Ministries under its control in addition to nullifying Mugabe’s appointees, and these must proceed to their offices Webster Shamu style, of course ‘acting temporarily while awaiting Presidential confirmation’. The same thing must be done with Governors, Ambassadors etc. Ndokutotonga kwacho machinda, don’t think for a minute you will be told where the levers of power are.
The same thing must happen with the RBZ Governor and Attorney General’s positions. MDC should identify its preferred candidates, get them to agree and actually announce them. Let these people begin reporting to RBZ and AG’s offices respectively. Tsvangirai announced Ministers and it stood; privately done I am sure Mugabe would have resisted a few characters and suggested different permutations to those that prevailed in the end. In my opinion, that is precisely why Roy Bennet was taken in, to prevent the inevitability of him becoming Deputy Minister of Agriculture. Acting Mr. Nice, Understanding guy will get Tsvangirai and the MDC nowhere. Do anything and everything that appears like it is covered by the Global Political Agreement.
Next is the office of the Minister of Finance. If Gono could usurp the functions of the Minister of Finance and many other ministries, I do not see why it should not be possible for Biti to do the same. After all, he has the purse strings. He should find ways of circumventing the Central Bank. If Mugabe insists on Gono remaining in the office, let it be a hollow shell. After all, most of the money to be administered will be coming on the goodwill of the MDC’s presence in government. No secret must be made of the deliberate effort to circumvent the Central Bank and emasculate Gono, the whole world must know.
Up next should be the investigation of atrocities that were perpetrated in the run up to the second election period. There should be a parliamentary or ministerial committee set up, supported by neutral judicial personalities such as Justice Sandura or other such. This must start by compiling nationwide data of who destroyed, burnt or killed what and who, and at whose command. Next it must hear evidence from people in those communities affected and a people’s verdict passed.
If there is improvement in the human rights situation as this is progressing, such as the unconditional release of all political prisoners, a stop to all arbitrary arrests and detentions, free play to those who would wish to publicly voice any opinion, a return to press freedom and such like – maybe those found guilty, if they apologise unreservedly; can be let to go with suspended sentences in the interest of national healing. A motion in parliament should get this going as soon as possible; I believe a simple majority would be enough to carry it. Obviously those ‘residual forces’ resisting the GNU, if they indeed exist, after inflicting so much harm in the past 10 years, still want to hold people to ransom but the people must fight them and we will prevail.
On that reasoning, the MDC must not make deals of amnesty by reason of its comrades held in detention. Instead, it must get into motion immediately the very thing these Very Bad Men are trying to prevent, it means they know it can be done successfully! There can not be any going back, or any further delay. Any chess player will tell you attack is the best form of defence.
MDC should also employ divide and rule tactics. In every institution, in every place, they must identify senior people sympathetic to them, and these abound; and use them as the fulcrum upon which they wriggle themselves into positions of advantage. For example, is it true that all judges are sympathetic to Zanu PF? Is it true that all senior Army and Police Officers are sympathetic to Zanu PF? All senior Prison Officers? All senior CIO officers? Indeed all Prosecutors?
If these people could be found, the strategy would be to do actions that are embarrassing to Zanu PF and Mugabe to reverse, like get a judge to release prisoners on bail, get a police unit to stop farm invasions and generally shake up things everywhere in the establishment without waiting for a discussion over a cup of coffee with Mugabe and his henchmen. The people will always be behind them, and should they be dismissed, it is surely better than to ‘walk away’ from the GNU in dejection, because people will remember the strings they were pulling.
Of course this strategy will have its casualties, but either way, this mortal combat for the soul of Zimbabwe is bound to have many. It is better to have those casualties you budget for than those imposed on you by the enemy.
I do not for one minute advocate for lawlessness, all these things are merely political decisions and the exercise of political muscle: and can all be done without an iota of violence and within the laws of the land, as Shamu tried unsuccessfully because people were against him. Imagine if he was on the side of the people, just dare imagine what would have been the outcome.
I will inspire you with this link where a herd of buffalos kick a pride of Lion, a real life story. If buffalos can defeat a whole pride and rescue their young calf from jaws of certain death, anything is possible for the people of Zimbabwe.
With due respect to the new Prime Minister, I am always filled with trepidation every time he opens his mouth to make some public pronouncement, maybe more so now that he is in Government, speaking from a position of authority that goes with office. Mr Tsvangirai has a penchant for putting his foot in his mouth, but I did not think he would do it quite so early in his premiership; in fact at his maiden speech!
In the recent past, the ultimatum he issued to ZANU PF in protest to the political abductions comes to mind. Mr Tsvangirai threatened to walk away from the talks if all political abductees, including Ghandi Mudzingwa and Jestina Mukoko were not released by a set date. ZANU PF called his bluff; they are still incarcerated.
Promises and euphoria
In a recent article in The Zimbabwe Times, it is reported at his maiden speech as Prime Minister Mr Tsvangirai has promised Zimbabwe’s 150 000-strong civil service salaries will be pegged in foreign currency beginning end of February.
“We must make the country start working again,” Tsvangirai told an estimated 30 000 crowd that thronged Harare’s Glamis Arena on Wednesday to witness his inaugural speech as Prime Minister, to deafening applause.
This is as it should be. A new beginning. Some might even urge it was reminiscient of the euphoria and hope that greeted Mr Mugabe`s speech on 18 April 1980 at independence.
So why am I still worried?
The questions that come to mind are;
• Is this part of a carefully considered and well thought-out plan, which may be part of the MDC`s secret Economic Recovery Blue Print we mere mortals may not be privy to? End of February is just over two weeks away as I write this article.
• Was this an off-the-cuff idea, spurred on by the euphoria that went with the occasion? If it is, was it necessary to make such a reckless promise and raise the people`s hopes on hazy probabilities? There is so much goodwill and understanding flowing in Mr Tsvangirai`s direction from across the political divide and he does not need to impress by making unattainable promises in the heat of the moment. If this was the case, the Prime Minister should only read from his carefully crafted and considered speeches and try to deviate as little as possible from prepared text.
• What are the modalities and logistics of putting in place such an ambitious and momentous move? Does cabinet need to sit down and discuss the matter? Is it a matter that has already been discussed and agreed by the principals?
The amounts involved are staggering. To pay the 150 000 strong civil service, say the amount suggested in the article of $604/month each for one year is close to $1.1 billion per year. If we are to consider the minimum amount being demanded by the teachers of $2,200, then the amount is close to $4 billion per year.
Cloaks and daggers
If a sustainable source of the money has been identified, the modalities worked on and agreed upon, then well done Prime Minister, you have just hit the ground running!
But I have a sneaking feeling that even if the money source has indeed been identified, ZANU PF would not be happy to see the new PM change things so fast as that would cast them in bad light, and MDC in shining armour. A delay long enough to disillusion the workers will be orchestrated, to bring disaffection to the PM and where possible, ensure it becomes yet another empty promise. ZANU PF is not worried about making empty promises. It has been making them these last 29 years, and it will not look kindly to the kind of efficient delivery the Prime Minister seems to be promising.
This assertion is based in fact. The food distribution to the poor and the vulnerable was at some stage stopped; the fear was credit for the food relief packages would go to the opposition as it was coming from the West.
When Elias Mudzuri became mayor of Harare, tangible positive change became obvious in a very short space of time. Massive roads resurfacing, water losses minimised, refuse collection dramatically improved, and Chombo was not happy with the euphoria that gripped Harare at Mudzuri`s success. We all know what followed.
Indeed the new battle front will be on who steals the thunder from whom, who takes the credit for what. Discrediting each other overtly or covertly will be the order of the day. Booby traps, the Pious-Ncube-type will be snared and entrappings on lucrative underhand dealings arranged. Bugs will be installed on office walls and computers. There may be casualties. This is the sad reality of close-combat; where you were using sniper fire-power, you now need to use a bayonet. Same war, different weapons.
Finally MDC should desist from issuing personal opinions as official position, either in the party or in government. Gone should be the days when Tsvangirai, Biti and Chamisa would all sing from different hymn sheets on matters of grave importance, leaving their PR spokespersons to clean up the mess. Use those mobile phones, come to a consensus before uttering statements for public consumption.
This is a different ball game altogether now where every word you say, every gesture, your very body language are all put under microscope by numerous detractors, hostile press and certain political `analysts/commentators` who will assiduously study and find ways to make mud stick.
At the end of the day, the New Agenda in ZANU PF is to make the MDC`s currently squeaky clean image as muddy as possible by the time of the next election, and in the process, leave the voters heartily disillusioned.
One can only hope the promise to pay the 150 000 civil servants in forex by end of February does not come back and hound you, Mr Prime Minister.
I once wrote a poem on why I am ashamed to be a Zimbabwean, why we all Africans should be ashamed of ourselves. Not that I am very poetic, but you know how anything particularly negative gets most Africans singing. Such was the mood.
On 20th January, I should have been proud to be African as I watched Barak Hussein Obama, a man of undoubted and not too distant African roots take possibly the office most mortals consider to be the highest on earth – that of the President of the United States. But I had a bag of seriously mixed emotions. It was the kind of feeling you have when your son or daughter weds a week after you bury your spouse. You want to rejoice, but you think of how it could have been all the merrier if he/she had been alive to share the joy.
So it was when I saw the triumph of democracy as it uplifted arguably one from the most oppressed race of people on earth – blacks, to the pinnacles of utmost power as it is know to man. The challenge I would have wanted to advance with some indignation is, “Stand up those who would have us believe the black man is no good, and can never amount to much? Raise your hand those that believe the black man is of somewhat inferior intelligence, a creature to be led rather than to lead self and others?”
In the end, it left me with a sour taste in the mouth that at arguably the finest hour of triumph for the black race in politics, we have in our African backyard a myriad of atrocities and political intransigence perpetuated by black men upon fellow blacks. To add insult to injury, other black neighbours who should know better seem at a loss and are indecisive on the course of action to take to guide fellow black leaders on the ‘paths of righteousness’. African leaders have a collective responsibility on how Africa turns out, and so far it’s not looking good at all.
While they are busy convincing themselves that the West is bent on suppressing the black man, the West could not have proved them more wrong by uplifting one of their kind to one of the loftiest seats possible for man on earth, without any signs of rancour.
I therefore could not celebrate much before remorse set in. It is very much like having a feast while raw sewage is running under your table, the pungent smell fighting and drowning the aroma of your food. Those two pictures are difficult to reconcile in the limited human brain – the one part embracing the aroma to satisfy hunger and the other suppressing the nausea to throw up what has been taken in.
So if a man of first generation African descent could be voted by the ‘wicked West’, White and Black alike, to lead such an awesome nation like the United States of America, it must be true that they are committed to democracy. When the West therefore supports democratic voices elsewhere in the world, why is it viewed as an attempt at regime change? Why are democratic movements that espouse the ideals of democracy illustrated no better than in the West labelled puppet movements of the same?
Barak Obama’s ascendancy to me is proof that the problem is not the African himself. The problem could be the systems that surround the African, shaped by his culture and history.
Firstly, Africans are obsessed with possession. Mwai Kibaki and Robert Mugabe and many others of their ilk believe the political leadership they have is a God given right, the ‘Zimbabwe is mine’ mentality. Mugabe means it not in the sense that he is a Zimbabwe who belongs to the same, but that he has this large piece of land he took from the whites which is his to do as he pleases. Remember the greatest problem we have with Mugabe is transfer of power, not only to the opposition, but even to his own party faithfuls.
Another African system that must be overcome is mediocrity. Obama is where he is simply because he is the best of what was on offer, not because he is African-American. He is also squeaky clean on character and integrity. In Africa, someone does not necessarily have to be the best candidate, nor must he be clean. Jacob Zuma’s battle to ascend the South African presidency quickly comes to mind. In the West, such a candidate who has such a prima facie case of corruption against would not last the very early rounds of a party’s candidate selection. In Africa, the ANC have now said they are adopting Zuma’s corruption and fraud issues as a party, in defence of their candidate.
Then there is this system of going into politics as one gets into a get-rich-quick scam. Again the reason a person like Zuma cannot countenance anything other than a politically powerful position is that, well that is all he is qualified to do. With his many responsibilities, many spouses and countless children (at least his are official), he would be doomed financially if he failed to land the top job in his country. Can you imagine that? How cruel can that be, most African leaders and aspiring leaders are basically what we would term failures in the sphere of financial and material achievement, yet we entertain such to lead us. I find it very depressing.
In America, a presidential candidate has to be a man of great wealth or at least have great potential to organise and gather it. There is little state sponsored budget to finance a campaign, the candidate has to basically market his ideas and get supporters and sympathisers to support him or her financially, not necessarily on the promise of a return when the candidate gets into power. In fact, Obama was so confident in his ability to organise and mobilise funds from the public that he decided to forgo the ‘paltry’ state grant which would have precluded him from doing so had he accessed this grant. The point is, a man of such abilities could easily make it in the business world outside politics, and would never cling on to politics as a ‘career’ or for survival.
One of the attributes we lack as Africans is frankness. We have a system of see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil. Our brothers from the West are blunt and very frank, and although I find it very disconcerting at times, I admire that greatly. If I get an unsolicited call from an Insurance salesman, it is not my natural disposition to tell him to go find the nearest tree and hang himself; but not so with my Caucasian friends.
So it is then that, when SADC and AU leaders should simply have told Mugabe he was the loser, to go pack his bags and leave State house pronto, they began to make excuses for him. They cannot tell him straight to his face that he is being unreasonable. Mbeki even found a term for this African shortcoming and called it “quiet diplomacy”. Africans do not tell each other the truth, which is what they truly think and feel about a situation.
This system works closely with another of cowardice and self preservation, where for the fear of making a mistake or for as long as it is not affecting them directly, a person would rather not speak, act or commit on anything. African despots therefore exploit this tendency and make sure there is always a section of the population well taken care of. They operate a serious patronage programme based on this trait and thereby avert popular uprisings. There is no “One for all, All for one” approach by African brothers to their problems.
My sadness is that this political milestone for the black race finds us as the biblical five foolish maidens, unprepared for the bridegroom’s coming. There was a lot of benefit to be gotten for Africa by the momentum of a black president at the helm of the most powerful nation on earth – but alas, our lamps have no oil. Proper self-governance is in the intensive care over most of Africa yet it is the minimum requirement when a nation expects others to engage it for mutual benefit.
This is my first post in over four weeks. In the four weeks, I was also in Zimbabwe for the not-so-festive season for two weeks, from the 20th to the 31st December. I came back through Botswana hoping to catch some sight of MDC bandits toy-toying but had no such luck.
My experience in Zimbabwe was very sobering. You get this sense that there is this Zimbabwe we picture in the Diaspora and that Zimbabwe happening on the ground. The Zimbabwe on the ground is surprisingly in a slumber, except perhaps for the very politically involved.
In the two weeks I do not remember reading the newspaper or really sitting down to listen to the TV. I would therefore try to glean information from the common man and not only did they not quite know what was taking place, they did not seem to care too much. Not to say they are not clear what they want, but they do not unnecessarily want to burden themselves with the nitty-gritty’s of things they cannot influence. Or so they think: let me return to this point later.
I therefore concluded that we in the Diaspora with our access to the news channels online and everywhere, we are our own worst enemies, cranking ourselves into a frenzy. We are constantly checking the email for the next news, anxiously hoping for some movement. My new year resolution is to do less of that.
Those on the ground where the news is happening have only one worry, how to survive the next day (if of course they have not been abducted, which is another story altogether!). With the virtual dollarization of the economy, it can be argued that things are now ‘better’, only in the sense that basics are now widely available and in some cases are getting progressively cheaper. Some towns are madder than others, as I recall protesting vociferously as I purchased one litre of milk in Bulawayo at thrice its shelf price in South Africa. There were of course some pleasant surprises, fuel as a good example, which I was buying in coupon form at prices slightly below South African ones at the time.
The sticking point of course is that not everyone is earning the dollar or rand, or the improvised equivalent which has become legal tender, coupons. The dealers meet the hard currency on the streets, but the civil servant is the worst victim, as the government has not devised any inventive remuneration schemes to protect their work force as the private sector has done.
What dollarization has also done is to take away the advantage those with foreign currency had in an environment where local currency operated, where a small bit of currency like USD$10 could be ‘burnt’, literally multiplied, by changing it to local currency at astronomical cross rates. The local currency is now almost redundant.
If Zanu PF could find a way of getting SADC to pour into the economy the rand as official tender, and of course support it by ensuring there is enough for the civil service to be paid, it could effectively complete a coup on the MDC and afford it to completely sideline them as is their wish.
SADC (read as South Africa and others) has shown the appetite to circumvent the demands for fair play by coming up with a SADC vehicle to distribute aid they had vowed could only be distributed after a Unity Government is in place. Others will argue of course that they were thinking of the povo instead of the selfish politicians. One wonders what else they are prepared to do in defence of a brother-in-arms.
Their only worry would be the fiscal indiscipline and endemic corruption in Mugabe’s government; SADC taxpayers would cry foul and lose these leaders support at home.
What I can see is that Zimbabwe has become a test case on the battle of wits between erstwhile ‘Colonial’ Powers and African Liberation Movements. The later are determined to prove that Africans can govern, indeed can resolve their own issues, peer to peer. They are determined to resist the prescriptions of the West and America on who should govern and how they should govern, in their circles such a prescription read as ‘Tsvangirai and the MDC-T’.
No wonder then at Mutambara’s overboard vitriolic in singing from the same pages of Mugabe’s hymn book. The truth of the issue is that this hymn book is the official African Leaders’ song book if they are to be deemed truly African, and to be trusted with carrying forward the gains of the liberation struggle.
On seeing Zimbabwe on the ground, the position espoused by the MDC of hoping that Zimbabwe will ‘crash and burn’ so they would pick up the pieces afterwards, to quote Eddie Cross the Policy Co-ordinator of the party, may be a long way in coming. You ought to remember that Zimbabwe with an estimated seven million people left in the country has a smaller population than Soweto at about thirteen million. As long as South Africa props up this regime, it will never crash, the South African fiscus can uphold it with ease. It is like an average province of South Africa really.
I said earlier that Zimbabweans do not seem to care much what is happening around them, but on closer inquiry, you realise that they have this total faith in the leadership of the MDC-T to bring them the change they hope for. I have read and heard many deride Morgan Tsvangirai for his naivety and not being resourceful as a leader; but I believe it is this apparent simplicity required for Zimbabwean politics in practice. Look how the think-tanks, from Jonathan Moyo and of late Mutambara, seem to trip over themselves.
The average voter in Zimbabwe knows a few simple facts: Firstly Tsvangirai ndizvo! (basically means, he is the man of the moment); secondly Mutambara mutengesi (meaning he is a sell-out); thirdly Makoni is not serious, fourthly Mugabe and Zanu PF are killers and on their way out and finally that hapana chisingaperi, kana muroyi chaiye anofa (Nothing lasts forever, even a witch will suffer the inescapable fate of death.)
As I wrote in an earlier article, MDC Prevarications must stop, this does not mean that peoples’ attitudes are cast in stone and should an inventive politician arise, the ball game could change for Tsvangirai. Makoni was the hope of some if his Mavambo project had not faltered soon after elections. Also, the going of Mugabe is no guarantee of better days with his junta likely to usurp power (he is Legion, as Magora would put it!), so this waiting game to me is not very meaningful. It is on this premise that I have supported the idea of the MDC getting into a Unity Government with any leverage whatsoever. Others disagree, with good reasons too.
The dynamism in Zimbabwean politics is such that nothing is guaranteed; Tsvangirai may actually fail to ascend to that highest office in the land at the end of it all. But to his credit, that does not seem to be the pre-occupation of his mind.
However, no one at the moment has suggested that single action that if it were done, would be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. That action that would create a domino change effect that cannot be halted. What would that be? This leaves us in the domain of needing some Divine intervention in 2009.
(This is written as a sequel to an earlier analysis - MDC prevarications must stop)
I must of necessity point out a matter of great hypocrisy “the Facilitation” on the Zimbabwe Dialogue deflects in the hope of selling Zimbabweans and the whole wide world a dummy. In his infamous letter to Morgan Tsvangirai on page 9, Mbeki states:
“You know that among other things various countries of our region host large numbers of economic migrants from Zimbabwe, who impose particular burdens on our countries.”
“Fair and good”, I thought. The pressures that he describes on these countries’ socio-economic front are not imaginary. But the hypocrisy is evident a few paragraphs further when he writes,
“This particular burden is not carried by the countries of Western Europe and North America, which have benefited especially from the migration of skilled and professional Zimbabweans to the North.”
I winced, and thought, “Please Mr. Facilitation, give us a break!” Yes it is true Zimbabweans have exported their skills all over the world: North, East, West but any number-literate person will tell you that with the estimated four million Zimbabweans in South Africa, a very high proportion of them holding skilled, professional, senior and executive positions in private business, public enterprises and in government departments, South Africa has benefited the most from the Zimbabwean workforce.
South Africa only bears with the other not so productive ‘economic refugees’ for two reasons: firstly the majority migrate back and forth; and secondly a dragnet imposition of bottlenecks on the same would ultimately bite those organizations that desperately need the broader Zimbabwean skills. Those that moved South are indeed more than those that moved in any other direction.
The brain drain in South Africa to the ‘North’, i.e. Europe, America and Australasia is just as bad as that of Zimbabwe. For that reason, South Africa is relying heavily on skilled Zimbabweans from teachers to chief executive officers to keep their forts at home. If there was a sudden turnaround of fortunes for Zimbabwe and people saw hope clearly on the horizon, my considered conclusion is that South African schools, private businesses and other organizations would cry foul, as Zimbabwean and indeed South African professionals head across the Limpopo.
As president of South Africa, Mbeki was confronted with the dire skills shortage in his country. I remember one time on an official visit to London he was chiding the British Prime Minister for their pursuit of South African skills. I thought what hypocrisy, at home he is doing the same on Zimbabwe!
Mbeki is not unaware of this scenario that a totally conducive environment in Zimbabwe is not in South Africa’s best economic interests. Zimbabwe had indeed always been an alternative destination for investment in Africa given its average to good infrastructure, abundant natural resources and the relatively crime-free environment. Mbeki’s strategy for Zimbabwe is that he wants peace to prevail but not a conducive business and political environment as it would rival South Africa for opportunities and reclaim skills they cannot afford to let go.
South Africa’s more pressing concern in this whole charade is therefore the protection of their economic interests, not necessarily democracy in a neighbouring state. Peace and stability in the region just happens to be one precondition for economic progress, but that can happen without democracy. Africa’s wisdom of pressuring the ‘opposition’ into an Inclusive Government to keep the losing ‘ruling party’ in the corridors of power is good testimony to this.
Mbeki’s own brother once likened Mugabe to the school naughty guy who routinely insults everyone including teachers and the headmaster to the cheers of all around. They whistle and clap when this rabble-rouser does his antics, but when discipline time comes, the naughty guy gets all the stripes while the others stand dispassionately by. The ANC made and respect a secret agreement with white business never to disrupt the economic status quo in exchange for political power, yet Mbeki spurs Mugabe on in his ‘anti-western’, ‘Zimbabwe-never-be-a-colony again’ and ‘sovereignty’ crusades.
I was telling a friend that Mbeki is like a man who hears his neighbor beating the daylights out of his wife (or vice-versa!). This is happening at 02:00am everyday and disturbs this man’s sleep such that he cannot concentrate at work. He decides to arbitrate in their dispute. While the abused spouse tries to explain the root cause of the dispute, the self appointed mediator is not interested in the details, but just persuades the parties to agree to and sign a peace order that they should not fight, especially at night.
He extracts an undertaking that any fighting, when it happens, must happen during the day when he is at work. He further prescribes that should one be killed, the funeral should be as quiet an affair as possible. This man is obviously more interested in his own welfare and cares very little about the couple next door. When challenged by onlookers, he snorts defiantly that lasting solutions to squabbling spouses can only be brought about by the spouses themselves.
True maybe, but what the heck are you doing “next door”, then? “The Facilitation” indeed, what cheek!
To prevaricate is “to avoid giving a direct and honest answer or opinion, or a clear and truthful account of a situation, especially by quibbling or being deliberately ambiguous or misleading”.
For readers of my contributions, that I am sympathetic to the cause of the MDC is well known. That sympathy is of course born out of the realization that the MDC’s ambitions represent most closely those of the general, simple povo of Zimbabwe.
For that simple position, that the people of Zimbabwe must get their voices heard, the MDC have become agents of emancipation of the povo from their erstwhile liberators. For that reason, the MDC occupies moral high ground in Zimbabwe politics. And Morgan Tsvangirai and his gallant comrades are the embodiment of that hope the MDC is identified with.
I state the above clearly to put the following criticism into context, and this has been prompted particularly by Hon. Biti’s letter to not-so-honourable Thabo Mbeki of the 19th November and the reply by the latter of the 22nd November, both of which are now in the public domain.
My own worry is that the MDC must not overtrade the currency of moral high ground; and consequently, the support and sympathy of the majority of Zimbabweans and those who care for the sorry state that is Zimbabwe presently.
Let me first say the ten-page letter by the former president of South Africa gives one the impression of a letter written late at night over a whisky bottle. It is a letter of two parts, the first part which warrants some consideration of the issues raised, and the second part where you feel the effects of booze were winning over the writer. The pipe smoke was obviously not helping either, ‘clouding his view’, literally. All reports I have read to date focus on the last two pages where the former president literally goes into a mud-sling onslaught of our Prime Minister designate.
I will only say in the absence of facts where he could point out that after we had agreed point X, Tsvangirai changed after the recommendation of Mr. Brown or Mr. Bush who had said thus and thus. Mr. Mbeki is therefore merely speculating in his insinuations and reveals his leanings on these issues; which are obviously identified clearly with one side to the negotiation.
But then, other issues come to the fore if you assume that since this was diplomatic, personal correspondence, there would be no reason for Mbeki to tell outright fibs and fabrication of facts. Indeed the complains so far have not been that Mbeki told untruths in the letter, but that he insulted Mr. Tsvangirai and the MDC by insinuating that they have an unhealthy leanings to the countries in Western Europe and North America.
The first issue that Mbeki articulates clearly throughout the letter is insinuations of divisions and intra-party wrangling. It becomes clear from reading the letter that there are two sources of decision making, which are not in tandem.
There are for example suggestions of a decision agreeing to a meeting for a review of Constitutional Amendment No. 19 (CA#19) for the 19-20th November by all parties, only to be cancelled because Hon. Biti could not attend. The MDC-T, because it was the party in breach to this agreement, then suggested a meeting on the 25th November when ostensibly Biti would be available.
The next thing, Biti is writing the Facilitator to say the position of the MDC-T is that because the SADC decision regarding the way forward on the Zimbabwe Dialogue was “a nullity not yet rescinded”, there would be no sense in meeting as this would only legitimize what the party had categorically disagreed with.
Whereas disagreement with the SADC ruling seems unanimous within the MDC-T, there seems to be no agreed strategy of reacting to it, indeed there seems to be no considered way forward. The simple fact of whether to pursue CA#19 separately as part of the overall strategy of the talks agenda was obviously not agreed upon within the Party prior to the diplomatic faux pas of the past week.
The people of Zimbabwe and all their friends deserve better leadership from the MDC-T, I suspect important meetings at National Council level to timely discuss these developments so that a collective position is taken after arguing out different approaches are being neglected.
The second issue that comes out clearly is that the MDC negotiators and Mr. Tsvangirai have not held a consistent line in their demands. When some of those demands have been met, Mr. Tsvangirai and company renege on the same suddenly realizing they could have bargained for more. On page 4, Mbeki writes “You will remember your own insistence that in the context of the agreement that there should be two Ministers of Home Affairs, these should serve in rotation, with the MDC(T) appointee taking the first slot.”
He continues to say, “You affirmed that if this were to be agreed, it would mark the conclusion of the negotiations about the distribution of the Ministerial portfolios, and therefore enable the establishment of the Zimbabwe Inclusive Government, with your endorsement and support”.
Although Zanu PF and now Mbeki are convinced from examples such as the above that the MDC are taking instructions from other sources such as USA and Britain, I am kinder and suggest that it’s more a sign of internal divisions on strategy and inconclusive decisions on positions to take in the negotiations. I dare not imagine that there is bitter in-fighting among the senior leadership of the party as I have heard some detractors suggest.
My point is not whether MDC-T should accept co-sharing of the Home Affairs portfolio. What I find as a serious allegation, un-challenged at the time of writing, from the Facilitation is that this suggestion originated from MDC-T, who when it was finally agreed to by Zanu PF, the Facilitator and then SADC, they later come to the masses and whip up our emotions into a frenzy about the intransigency of Zanu PF and Mbeki. With the benefit of hindsight, Mbeki’s decision that these talks be kept secret was not so great after all, as parties to the talks can change their positions as a chameleon changes his skin without reprisals from the public gallery.
What is clear is that the MDC-T feel, and maybe rightly so, that they have technically under-negotiated their position. I have always wondered how these negotiations are conducted, but I would suspect when they get to higher levels where they involve heads of state, they become very technical. If you have followed court procedures you may appreciate my thinking. The prosecution must outline its case in full. The defense, when it is their turn, must do likewise, clearly addressing and rebutting any material aspects of the charges against the defendant. From there, witnesses are cross-examined on each side. The magistrate, jury or judge must then decide on the ‘merits’ of the case as presented.
The defendant cannot raise his hand on a latter date and say, “Excuse me Your Honor, but I have just remembered that on the day in question, I also had a drink with my friend, who can testify to my innocence.” The moral of my story is, the MDC presented a bad case for arbitration: for example surrendering the other security ministries too early without being guaranteed they would get Home Affairs because of that surrender. That was a bad piece of negotiating, and in all honesty it cannot be put squarely on Mbeki, vile as he may be, or on SADC for that matter. They were merely arbitrating on sticking points as presented.
Mbeki therefore argues successfully in his letter that in the circumstances, he has been ‘transparent’ as a facilitator. It is the circumstances themselves that are flawed, and whereas MDC-T is of the opinion that Mbeki should have pushed Zanu PF into some positions, my own understanding of the art of negotiating is that the MDC compromised too early and consequently presented an outlook of weakness, exploited by Zanu PF, the Facilitation and SADC.
How then does the situation resolve and can the MDC technically gain the upper ground in the negotiations that rightly belongs to them? Fortuitously, the drunken diatribe (there is no other way to understand the outburst) by the Facilitator in the second part of the letter may have provided the way out. Now the MDC can conclusively prove the bias of the Facilitation as he sang loudly from his mentor’s hymn book, barely avoiding using the word ‘puppet’ of Western Europe and North America. Now the MDC can justifiably demand the replacement of the Facilitation from SADC and stand their ground on that.
But having said that, in perhaps his last contribution to the talks, the Facilitator raised numerous issues that must call the MDC to account to the masses trusting it to decide and deliver only in their best interests, without regard to personal feuds and jockeying for positions and power within the party. He makes interesting observations that the formations of the MDC must stop considering themselves as the opposition but rather part of the ruling coalition, chillingly reminding them that once consummated, the success or failure of the Zimbabwe Inclusive Government would equally be on their shoulders as it would be upon Zanu PF’s.
