There will be research papers and books written, conference or symposium presentations made, in-depth analyses conducted, even movies and documentaries made to try and explain why and how a son of a Kenyan man and a white US American woman, who carries a "weird" name such as Barack Hussein Obama, was elected to be the 44th US President. And this in a country with a black population of only 12-15%. A lot has been said about the racist past (or present) of the US population and as the elections drew nearer, there were some fears of the so called "Bradley Effect" (where white voters would publicly declare that they would vote for a black man, but in the privacy of the ballot booth, they would in actual fact vote for a white man).
There will be a lot of speculation on how Obama pulled this off, given that a black US president was something never imagined a few years ago. The pictures are still vivid in people's minds, of racial segregation, white racists throwing bombs into black churches, police brutality against blacks, the assassination of ML King Junior in the late 1960. There are many people alive today, who were there before the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s and these people still can't believe that they have lived to see the day a black man moves into the White House.
And the irony of the term "White House" is very telling. It is the House which is White and not necessarily the tenant. There are indeed many factors that led to Obama's victory. Some of them can be directly attributed to him and his amazingly disciplined, organised, efficient, competent and professional team and machinery. But others were outside forces which favoured him. Just like George W Bush's presidency got a "boost" from the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York and Washington DC. The 2001 attacks defined the Bush presidency around the war on terror. He even got reelected in 2004 because of this issue.
The following are some, but definitely not all the reasons why Obama won. They are key in understanding the so called "Obama Effect"
1. Organising Communities
Barack Obama started his political career as a community organiser in the suburbs of Chicago. He worked with people at grassroots level and understood what the common person feels and goes through and he has never lost that touch with the masses. Obama knew that it is the grassroot people who make the biggest voting majority. His early experiences helped him sympathise and empathise with the common man on the street and when he told people the that he understood what they were going through, they believed him. This experience helped shape his campaign. The Clinton Machinery was up to now regarded as the most efficient election machinery in US history. It had been designed during the Bill Clinton campaigns of the 1990s, and was used in the Democratic party primaries to support Hillary Clinton. But it could not match the Obama organisation of communities.
2. A High-Tech Machinery
The Obama Campaign refused to take state funding for the elections, which would have limited them to how much they could spend. John McCain took the state money and was now restricted to that amount. Obama raised, through small donations so much money that he could afford in the end to "waste" some of it on 30 minute campaign programs on the major American networks. Air time on these networks is so expensive and buying 30 minutes of it shows how much money he had. But it wasn't just the money. The fact that small people, college students, housewives and factory workers could donate $5 or $10 or $25 towards Obama Campaign gave them ownership of the project. They were shareholders of the movement. It was not a lot of money to give, but add the millions who can afford a $5 donation, you suddenly have lots of money.
Using the Internet to communicate with people, and asking for small amounts made people feel special. The emails sent by the Obama team to all who registered on the website, were addressed to each person by their name. Of course we know there is technology for that and an email with your name on it doesn't necessarily mean the sender knows you, but it gives you a heck of a good feeling.
3. Obama's Oratory
Great speakers have always inspired people. They make people dream and develop a vision about their future. Two of the greatest speakers in modern history were Adolf Hitler (in Germany) and Martin Luther King. They both used their amazing gift of oratory to mobilise people, to create images of where they wanted to take the people and inspired people. Of course Adolf Hitler's vision led to disaster, but it doesn't take away the fact that he was amazingly eloquent. Martin Luther King spoke of "being on the mountain top and having seen the promised land." And that was in 1968. He has always been considered to have been a prophetic voice. Obama has this gift to speak and move people. He broke into the limelight during the 2004 US presidential campaigns as a speaker at the Democratic Convention. After that he became one of the most sought after speakers at Democratic Party events. The world and Americans will never forget his amazing speeches, eloquence and ability to inspire people during this campaign. The daughter of the late US President John F Kennedy said, as she endorsed Obama during the primaries, that she has heard how her father inspired people (she was too young then to remember) and she believes Obama inspires people just like her father.
4. A New Generation of Americans
Obama does not come from the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. He about 7 years old when Martin Luther King was assassinated. There is some racial polarisation in some sections of the US population, with some blacks viewing whites as racists and having an agenda to keep blacks down. Some whites "fear" the black "anger, revenge and militancy". There is suspicion about the intentions of the "other side". An African American running for a high office in America can not avoid having to confront the dark past and the issue of race. It is always difficult to deal with it. One can't ignore it (one would lose the black vote) but one can't overplay it either (one could lose the white vote). That has always been a challenge and analysts believe, that was the downfall of Jesse Jackson when he ran in the primaries of the 1988.
Obama resisted that issue and he worked hard not to be seen as a black man, but as an American man. This is because, he doesn't have the family and historical baggage of the average African American. His black father came from Kenya to the USA on his own free will and by plane and not in chains on a ship. When Obama traces his roots, he doesn't have a great-grandfather who worked in the cotton fields of Georgia and the South as a slave. He could therefore be able to articulate an American vision for all without the white population running scared of a black president who would make them pay for the sins of their fathers. The early numbers indicate that about 45% of white voters voted for Obama in this election. What an endorsement! That means there are things they see in him which go beyond his skin colour.
5. The US Economic Crisis
This, unlike any other factor, was the significant game-changer. Up until September/October the election polls where very tight. After the Republican Convention with the temporary Palin boost, John McCain was ahead in the polls. And then came the Wall Street collapse, leading to Main Street collapses. The theme on people's minds changed from security issues, war in Iraq, military experience to the economy. Just like Bill Clinton said when he decided to run in the 1992 against a very popular incumbent President George Bush Senior "it's the economy stupid." Bush had won the Gulf War I and he had approval ratings beyond 65%. Very few Democrats were willing to run for fear of being humiliated. Bill Clinton realised that the economy will be the issue in 1992 and he ran and won. This time Obama had a huge stroke of "luck". The financial meltdown changed the focus and McCain's own admission that "he had little knowledge about the economy" was a disaster for McCain. The people believed that Obama was more competent to deal with the crisis and they have given him the mandate. Add the theme of "CHANGE" which has been Obama's from the start, you begin to have a nation inspired.
There will be lots of studies on the so-called "Obama Model". A number of organisations, companies and institutions are already beginning to look at what lessons can be learnt about organising people and creating communities. I am sure there are PhD candidates who are already working on the frameworks for dissertations about this model.
Whether we will ever get to the bottom of all the reasons and factors for the Obama victory is doubtful, but the world will indeed be different from the one we have known till now.
The entire world will have to look at the USA with different eyes.
Obama will definitely be a better bridge-builder in the global village. America's north Atlantic alliance partners adore Obama. Most citizens of Europe adore him as evidenced by the "rock-star" reception he received when he visited Germany earlier this year. In Japan there is a town which coincidentally is called Obama and they love him there. Africa claims him as its son, since his father is from the Luo tribe in Kenya.
We are very likely standing at the brink of something we are barely beginning to grasp. We surely haven't understood the full impact of the Obama movement, his victory, and what that means to the role of the USA in world. We will just wait and observe.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
A Prime Minister Without A Passport
If the Zimbabwe crisis was not a tragedy, one could really laugh about the latest developments in the SADC mediated attempts to form a coalition government. Just a brief background. Morgan Tsvangirai (leader of MDC-T) had a Zimbabwean passport which, due to his huge travel schedule, got filled up. That means, there were no more empty pages for the immigration officials at various airports and border control posts to put their stamp when he entered or left the country. For that reason, he had to apply for a new Zimbabwean passport.
The passport matters in Zimbabwe are the responsibility of the Registrar-General's Office, which also deals with the running of elections, voters' roll etc. and falls under the Ministry of Home Affairs. That is why this ministry is one of the contentious issues in the current negotiations.
Morgan Tsvangirai's passport got full about 2 months ago and he submitted his application for a new passport immediately. He paid the required application fee and submitted all the necessary documents. Two months later, he still doesn't have a passport and the Registrar-General's Office (under instruction from the care-taker ZANU-PF government) has been giving him excuses for not issuing him a passport.
The excuses range from administrative difficulties, lack of resources to process a passport and to simply "no reason."
Without a passport, he can no leave Zimbabwe and the few times he has had to travel outside the country in the last two months, the Registrar-General's Office has issued him an Emergency Travel Document (ETD). This is a A4 piece of paper, with his photograph on it and which states which country he is going to travel to.
After the failed attempts last week by Thabo Mbeki to resolve the disagreement over who gets which cabinet posts in the Zimbabwean government, it was decided that a SADC troika meeting be held in Mbabane, Swaziland on Monday this week to try and resolve the issues. All principals of the three parties (ZANU-PF, MDC-T, MDC-M) would attend.
On Sunday afternoon the Mugabe government issued Tsvangirai an ETD which stated that he was travelling to Swaziland. Either it was mere stupidity or ignorance or deliberately done, the Registrar-General's Office "forgot" to include South Africa as a destination/transit for his travel. To get to Swaziland (which is landlocked) one needs to pass through South Africa. Without valid documents, one can't get into South Africa.
Morgan Tsvangirai then decided to boycott the trip, not because the ETD had an omission or error, but mainly because the Mugabe regime refuses to issue him a passport.
And he waited until the SADC leaders and Robert Mugabe were in Swaziland to announce it, in order to get maximum effect out of it. He could have made phone calls Sunday night and informed them.
This raises a number of issues on how the Zimbabwean crisis is being dealt with by Thabo Mbeki and SADC.
1. Apparently this issue of Tsvangirai's passport was raised a numbed of times in the recent Mbeki/Tsvangirai/Mutambara talks and Mbeki promised to deal with it. But no passport has been issued yet. Either Mbeki was dishonest or he failed to pressure Mugabe to issue the passport.
2. How does Mugabe think, he can work with a Prime Minister, who he doesn't trust enough to give him a passport? Unless Mugabe doesn't want the deal to work.
3. ZANU-PF has become so stupid and desperate that they have lost any common sense. Do they really think nobody will see through the trick of denying Tsvangirai a passport? Even a Grade 1 child can see through it.
4. Why does SADC believe Mugabe's lies about the reasons for the passport not being issued? One can get a passport in Zimbabwe within a week if one pays for it in US$ (or other foreign currency such as British pounds, South African Rands). The MDC-T can surely afford the payment in US$.
As Tendai Biti (Secretary General of MDC-T) said yesterday, the issue of the passport is just a sign of the deeper refusal of ZANU-PF to accept that they lost the March 29 election and should hand over power to the MDC formations.
Mugabe is still behaving like he has a mandate from the people of Zimbabwe. His "care-taker" ministers (many who lost their parliamentary seats in March) are still running government, making decisions, officiating at functions etc, ignoring the fact that their term ended some 6 months ago.
Robert Mugabe is being held hostage by his own party, not to allow the MDC to take control of governement and hence his childish tricks of refusing to share important government ministries.
Mugabe is refusing to appoint MDC provincial governors. He argues the constitution states that it is the President who appoints governors and the MDC can not intefere with that.
He refuses to accept that the spirit of the agreement demands that all key appointments be shared, no matter what the constitution says. This is important in order for trust and respect to develop between ZANU-PF and MDC.
The case of a "Prime Minister without a passport" just a symptom of the attitude of ZANU-PF to resolving the crisis. MDC made a huge compromise by signing the September 15 deal. As a matter of fact, a number of their alliance partners accuse the MDC of giving in too much to ZANU-PF. It is now high time that SADC and the AU finally tell Mugabe how to behave.
But given Mugabe's stubbornness and refusal to listen to any advice, that too is unlikely to work.
It is maybe time to do as the government of Botswana suggested i.e. conduct a free and fair re-run of the Presidential elections in Zimbabwe and let the people decide.
The passport matters in Zimbabwe are the responsibility of the Registrar-General's Office, which also deals with the running of elections, voters' roll etc. and falls under the Ministry of Home Affairs. That is why this ministry is one of the contentious issues in the current negotiations.
Morgan Tsvangirai's passport got full about 2 months ago and he submitted his application for a new passport immediately. He paid the required application fee and submitted all the necessary documents. Two months later, he still doesn't have a passport and the Registrar-General's Office (under instruction from the care-taker ZANU-PF government) has been giving him excuses for not issuing him a passport.
The excuses range from administrative difficulties, lack of resources to process a passport and to simply "no reason."
Without a passport, he can no leave Zimbabwe and the few times he has had to travel outside the country in the last two months, the Registrar-General's Office has issued him an Emergency Travel Document (ETD). This is a A4 piece of paper, with his photograph on it and which states which country he is going to travel to.
After the failed attempts last week by Thabo Mbeki to resolve the disagreement over who gets which cabinet posts in the Zimbabwean government, it was decided that a SADC troika meeting be held in Mbabane, Swaziland on Monday this week to try and resolve the issues. All principals of the three parties (ZANU-PF, MDC-T, MDC-M) would attend.
On Sunday afternoon the Mugabe government issued Tsvangirai an ETD which stated that he was travelling to Swaziland. Either it was mere stupidity or ignorance or deliberately done, the Registrar-General's Office "forgot" to include South Africa as a destination/transit for his travel. To get to Swaziland (which is landlocked) one needs to pass through South Africa. Without valid documents, one can't get into South Africa.
Morgan Tsvangirai then decided to boycott the trip, not because the ETD had an omission or error, but mainly because the Mugabe regime refuses to issue him a passport.
And he waited until the SADC leaders and Robert Mugabe were in Swaziland to announce it, in order to get maximum effect out of it. He could have made phone calls Sunday night and informed them.
This raises a number of issues on how the Zimbabwean crisis is being dealt with by Thabo Mbeki and SADC.
1. Apparently this issue of Tsvangirai's passport was raised a numbed of times in the recent Mbeki/Tsvangirai/Mutambara talks and Mbeki promised to deal with it. But no passport has been issued yet. Either Mbeki was dishonest or he failed to pressure Mugabe to issue the passport.
2. How does Mugabe think, he can work with a Prime Minister, who he doesn't trust enough to give him a passport? Unless Mugabe doesn't want the deal to work.
3. ZANU-PF has become so stupid and desperate that they have lost any common sense. Do they really think nobody will see through the trick of denying Tsvangirai a passport? Even a Grade 1 child can see through it.
4. Why does SADC believe Mugabe's lies about the reasons for the passport not being issued? One can get a passport in Zimbabwe within a week if one pays for it in US$ (or other foreign currency such as British pounds, South African Rands). The MDC-T can surely afford the payment in US$.
As Tendai Biti (Secretary General of MDC-T) said yesterday, the issue of the passport is just a sign of the deeper refusal of ZANU-PF to accept that they lost the March 29 election and should hand over power to the MDC formations.
Mugabe is still behaving like he has a mandate from the people of Zimbabwe. His "care-taker" ministers (many who lost their parliamentary seats in March) are still running government, making decisions, officiating at functions etc, ignoring the fact that their term ended some 6 months ago.
Robert Mugabe is being held hostage by his own party, not to allow the MDC to take control of governement and hence his childish tricks of refusing to share important government ministries.
Mugabe is refusing to appoint MDC provincial governors. He argues the constitution states that it is the President who appoints governors and the MDC can not intefere with that.
He refuses to accept that the spirit of the agreement demands that all key appointments be shared, no matter what the constitution says. This is important in order for trust and respect to develop between ZANU-PF and MDC.
The case of a "Prime Minister without a passport" just a symptom of the attitude of ZANU-PF to resolving the crisis. MDC made a huge compromise by signing the September 15 deal. As a matter of fact, a number of their alliance partners accuse the MDC of giving in too much to ZANU-PF. It is now high time that SADC and the AU finally tell Mugabe how to behave.
But given Mugabe's stubbornness and refusal to listen to any advice, that too is unlikely to work.
It is maybe time to do as the government of Botswana suggested i.e. conduct a free and fair re-run of the Presidential elections in Zimbabwe and let the people decide.
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
An ANC Breakup Would Be Good for South Africa
The tensions in the ANC have been brewing for a long time. Ever since the then ANC and South African president Thabo Mbeki in 2005 fired his state deputy Jacob Zuma the party has been in deep trouble. This was after Judge Hilary Squires infered that Jacob Zuma had a corrupt relationship with his friend Shabir Shaik. Shaik was convicted of corruption and sentenced. There have been people in the ANC/SACP/COSATU alliance who accused the Prosecuting Authority of being used by the State in a conspiracy to prosecute Zuma and stop him from succeeding Mbeki as both ANC and national president.
After Thabo Mbeki announced that he was going to stand for election as ANC president for a third term (contrary to some people's expectations that he would retire), the tensions became even more palpable. For Thabo Mbeki to stand for re-election meant he would stand against Jacob Zuma and that put the ANC in a very difficult position of having to be part of a "fight" between and the ANC president and his deputy rather than be witness to a smooth hand-over. Whether Mbeki should have stood or not, is now water under the bridge, but his decision meant that ANC members had to make a choice between him and Zuma. The populist Zuma managed to get the powerful COSATU and the "militant" ANC Youth League on his side.
The Polokwane Conference in December 2007 was a painful event for many people in the ANC. Thabo Mbeki was booed and humiliated infront of the whole world with TV cameras rolling. Of course many would argue that he brought it upon himself through his leadership style which apparently did not connect with the masses and by deciding to run for a third term.
But Thabo Mbeki still received above 40% of the votes and this is also reflected in the fact that he had the support of about that section of the ANC branches and grassroot members.
Thabo Mbeki left Polokwane weakened (still national president but not ANC president) and Jacob Zuma and his supporters left the conference strengthened and energized, but the ANC left Polokwane divided as a party. The new ANC leadership proclaimed that they would work to unify the party in view of the 2009 national elections. They said, they would reach out to the hurting "Mbeki supporters" to try and heal the rift and remind them of the greater ANC objective of improving the lives of South Africans (especially the poor). They talked about the fact that personal differences should not override the greater good of the ANC and the nation. They kept talking about the rich history and legacy of the 96year old party and the fact that the party has survived similar threats of division in the past and that it will bounce back again this time.
But ever since Dec 2007, it was very clear that the ANC was now a party divided. Many "Mbeki supporters" were not even elected to the National Executive Committee of the party. The ANC leadership structures were now dorminated by the so-called Zuma supporters. There were tensions even at provincial level where the Zuma supporters, embolded by Polokwane, went after the Mbeki supporters and in some cases removed them from various positions. The talk of "healing the party" was never translated into action, mainly because the animosity between the two camps was too big. The involvement of "outsiders" such as COSATU and SACP in the internal affairs of the ANC made it even more difficult. Thabo Mbeki had been lamenting about their involvement during his time as ANC president. There had been fall-outs between Mbeki and Blade Nzimande (SACP Secretary General) about the SACP demands to be "heard and taken seriously" by the ANC, since they were alliance partners. The Zuma leadership is greatly dependant on the SACP and COSATU (e.g. the current ANC Secretary General Manthashe is SACP Chairman). On top of that Jacob Zuma desparately needs COSATU and SACP as part of his "troopers" to make threats of making the country "ungovernable" and attack the judiciary for prosecuting him. It is very evident that COSATU/SACP and ANC Youth Leauge have helped Zuma is his legal problems and it appears that it is now time for the Zuma ANC to pay these "friends" back. The SACP and COSATU have attained a much bigger role in the ANC now that during Mbeki's tenure.
Between December 2007 and now the tensions between the new ANC leadership and the Mbeki supporters have not been resolved and in some cases worsened. The issue is, what direction should the ANC take and who actually personifies the "soul of the ANC"? Is it the left leaning Zuma camp or the the more market oriented Mbeki camp? Is it the sophisticated and intellectual Mbeki style or the jirating, toy-toying, dancing and folksstyle of Zuma and the alliance partners?
The statement by Judge Nicholson towards the end of September, which hinted that there was involvement of the executive (i.e. Mbeki) in influencing the prosecuting Zuma, was the straw that broke the carmel's back. The hawks in the Zuma camp who have been bying for Mbeki's bllod finally got their excuse to push for a decision to recall him (a nice word for "firing") from the office of state president.
Thabo Mbeki was forced to resign (about 6 months before the end of his term). This event like no other thus far marked indeed the split of the ANC. There has been a lot of speculation about the formation of a new and breakaway party eversince Thabo Mbeki was fired.
Today (8 October), Mousioa Lekota (ex ANC chairman) and other leading ANC leaders held a press conference in Sandton City to announce that they are of the opinion the current ANC leadership has veered from the original objectives of the organisation. They were critical of the leadership style of the current leaders and the fact that dissenting voices are being marginalised. They announced that in the next 4 weeks they will hold a consultative confrence where all people interested in the democracy and direction of South Africa will be invited. Everybody who is not happy with the direction the current ANC leadership is taking will be invited to this conference.
They threatened that unless the ANC changes its direction, "this could be the parting of the ways."
Mousioa Lekota mentioned that "they are serving divorce papers" to the ANC.
The implication is that a new party will be formed and this new party will contest the 2009 elections.
There are differing opinions about the possible split of the ANC and whether a new party will survive, it must however be mentioned that any organisation that can challenge to political dorminance of the ANC is good for South African democracy.
1. All functioning democracies in the world have more than one dorminant party. A ruling party must always be looking over its shoulder because there is another party ready to capture the votes and get into power.
2. Absoulute power corrupts and leads to the arrogance of power. This has been evidenced in many countries, mainly in Africa. A clear example is ZANU-PF of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe. When political parties are "guaranteed" to stay in power, they are no longer accountable to the people.
3. One of the biggest problems liberation movements have is the ability to transform from a liberation organisation to a modern party in government. Often the same militant, rigid and inward looking attitudes that served a purpose during the liberation days, remain intact. Hence the tendency of the ANC leadership to talk about "killing for....", "we will crush you.." and intolerance to opposing views. An ANC split will force the party to relook at how it relates to the rest of the society and hopefully transform into a modern party.
We will all watch the space and follow the developments closely.
After Thabo Mbeki announced that he was going to stand for election as ANC president for a third term (contrary to some people's expectations that he would retire), the tensions became even more palpable. For Thabo Mbeki to stand for re-election meant he would stand against Jacob Zuma and that put the ANC in a very difficult position of having to be part of a "fight" between and the ANC president and his deputy rather than be witness to a smooth hand-over. Whether Mbeki should have stood or not, is now water under the bridge, but his decision meant that ANC members had to make a choice between him and Zuma. The populist Zuma managed to get the powerful COSATU and the "militant" ANC Youth League on his side.
The Polokwane Conference in December 2007 was a painful event for many people in the ANC. Thabo Mbeki was booed and humiliated infront of the whole world with TV cameras rolling. Of course many would argue that he brought it upon himself through his leadership style which apparently did not connect with the masses and by deciding to run for a third term.
But Thabo Mbeki still received above 40% of the votes and this is also reflected in the fact that he had the support of about that section of the ANC branches and grassroot members.
Thabo Mbeki left Polokwane weakened (still national president but not ANC president) and Jacob Zuma and his supporters left the conference strengthened and energized, but the ANC left Polokwane divided as a party. The new ANC leadership proclaimed that they would work to unify the party in view of the 2009 national elections. They said, they would reach out to the hurting "Mbeki supporters" to try and heal the rift and remind them of the greater ANC objective of improving the lives of South Africans (especially the poor). They talked about the fact that personal differences should not override the greater good of the ANC and the nation. They kept talking about the rich history and legacy of the 96year old party and the fact that the party has survived similar threats of division in the past and that it will bounce back again this time.
But ever since Dec 2007, it was very clear that the ANC was now a party divided. Many "Mbeki supporters" were not even elected to the National Executive Committee of the party. The ANC leadership structures were now dorminated by the so-called Zuma supporters. There were tensions even at provincial level where the Zuma supporters, embolded by Polokwane, went after the Mbeki supporters and in some cases removed them from various positions. The talk of "healing the party" was never translated into action, mainly because the animosity between the two camps was too big. The involvement of "outsiders" such as COSATU and SACP in the internal affairs of the ANC made it even more difficult. Thabo Mbeki had been lamenting about their involvement during his time as ANC president. There had been fall-outs between Mbeki and Blade Nzimande (SACP Secretary General) about the SACP demands to be "heard and taken seriously" by the ANC, since they were alliance partners. The Zuma leadership is greatly dependant on the SACP and COSATU (e.g. the current ANC Secretary General Manthashe is SACP Chairman). On top of that Jacob Zuma desparately needs COSATU and SACP as part of his "troopers" to make threats of making the country "ungovernable" and attack the judiciary for prosecuting him. It is very evident that COSATU/SACP and ANC Youth Leauge have helped Zuma is his legal problems and it appears that it is now time for the Zuma ANC to pay these "friends" back. The SACP and COSATU have attained a much bigger role in the ANC now that during Mbeki's tenure.
Between December 2007 and now the tensions between the new ANC leadership and the Mbeki supporters have not been resolved and in some cases worsened. The issue is, what direction should the ANC take and who actually personifies the "soul of the ANC"? Is it the left leaning Zuma camp or the the more market oriented Mbeki camp? Is it the sophisticated and intellectual Mbeki style or the jirating, toy-toying, dancing and folksstyle of Zuma and the alliance partners?
The statement by Judge Nicholson towards the end of September, which hinted that there was involvement of the executive (i.e. Mbeki) in influencing the prosecuting Zuma, was the straw that broke the carmel's back. The hawks in the Zuma camp who have been bying for Mbeki's bllod finally got their excuse to push for a decision to recall him (a nice word for "firing") from the office of state president.
Thabo Mbeki was forced to resign (about 6 months before the end of his term). This event like no other thus far marked indeed the split of the ANC. There has been a lot of speculation about the formation of a new and breakaway party eversince Thabo Mbeki was fired.
Today (8 October), Mousioa Lekota (ex ANC chairman) and other leading ANC leaders held a press conference in Sandton City to announce that they are of the opinion the current ANC leadership has veered from the original objectives of the organisation. They were critical of the leadership style of the current leaders and the fact that dissenting voices are being marginalised. They announced that in the next 4 weeks they will hold a consultative confrence where all people interested in the democracy and direction of South Africa will be invited. Everybody who is not happy with the direction the current ANC leadership is taking will be invited to this conference.
They threatened that unless the ANC changes its direction, "this could be the parting of the ways."
Mousioa Lekota mentioned that "they are serving divorce papers" to the ANC.
The implication is that a new party will be formed and this new party will contest the 2009 elections.
There are differing opinions about the possible split of the ANC and whether a new party will survive, it must however be mentioned that any organisation that can challenge to political dorminance of the ANC is good for South African democracy.
1. All functioning democracies in the world have more than one dorminant party. A ruling party must always be looking over its shoulder because there is another party ready to capture the votes and get into power.
2. Absoulute power corrupts and leads to the arrogance of power. This has been evidenced in many countries, mainly in Africa. A clear example is ZANU-PF of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe. When political parties are "guaranteed" to stay in power, they are no longer accountable to the people.
3. One of the biggest problems liberation movements have is the ability to transform from a liberation organisation to a modern party in government. Often the same militant, rigid and inward looking attitudes that served a purpose during the liberation days, remain intact. Hence the tendency of the ANC leadership to talk about "killing for....", "we will crush you.." and intolerance to opposing views. An ANC split will force the party to relook at how it relates to the rest of the society and hopefully transform into a modern party.
We will all watch the space and follow the developments closely.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
What The Zimbabwe Deal Can Achieve.
The agreement between Robert Mugabe (ZANU-PF), Morgan Tsvangirai (MDC-T) and Arthur Mutambara (MDC-M) on resolving the challenges facing Zimbabwe was finally signed on Monday 15 September 2008 in Harare with all the pomp and ceremony a battered and traumatized country could muster. It was a result of a long process of negotiations facilitated by Thabo Mbeki (President of South Africa). A few hours after the signing ceremony, the actual document was then released to the public and is now there for all to see.
Since a lot of what is in the document had been "leaked" over the last few days, there were no major surprises in the actual document.
Opinions are very divided on this deal and a number of concerns have been raised by many analysts and sceptics.
Some people accept it as the best thing that could have happened to Zimbabwe at this moment, while others reject it completely as a project which will not work and will fail very early in its lifetime.
But the majority of people find themselves in between. There is a wait and see attitude because in as much as there are many excellent things in the agreement, there are also many areas of concern.
As Arthur Mutambara said in his remarks after the signing, this is a compromise document, flaws, warts and all. But it is the best that could be achieved in the current situation in Zimbabwe. It's a first step to the ultimate goal of a democratic and prosperous nation.
Some of the concerns are:
1. How can the parties that have had such strong resentment towards each other work together?
2. Has ZANU-PF/Robert Mugabe changed, from being obsessed with and abusing power to a party and person who can accommodate other opinions?
3. How is the complex government with a cabinet, council of ministers, JOMIC (Joint Monitoring and Implementation Committee) going to work?
4. How will paralysis be avoided i.e. check-mating one another between MDC and ZANU-PF?
5. How does one achieve a change of mindset in ZANU-PF for them to accept that they no longer absolute power?
6. Will the western donor countries (EU, USA, Japan etc) accept this new government, trust that Mugabe is not up to his old tricks and provide the required funding?
These and many other questions, real areas of concern and genuine questions which throw a cloud over the deal. But it is my opinion that there is more good than bad in this deal and I indicated that in my article:
http://alvin-mas.blogspot.com/2008/09/zimbabwe-dealis-glass-half-empty-or.html
This deal must be seen for what it really is, namely a framework for the transition from the Mugabe era to a more democratic dispensation for Zimbabwe. Nothing more and nothing less.
It's a step-wise removal of Mugabe from power, to a new generation of leaders and hopefully a move from ZANU-PF (with all it entails) to another ruling party.
Seen in this context, one would notice that this deal is a very positive achievement.
A study of the agreement document reveals what it will achieve if implemented. Given the dire condition in which the country finds itself, Robert Mugabe has very little choice (if any) than to go along with the deal.
1. The Deal Will Remove State Institutions, Events, Days from the Grip of ZANU-PF
Over the years ZANU-PF has run Zimbabwe as its own private property. Whatever is legitimately owned by Zimbabweans became ZANU-PF's private property and they could do whatever they wanted with it. Here are some examples.
Heroes Acre (a place where national heroes are buried) became a ZANU-PF cemetery. Only ZANU-PF people were buried there at the State's expense.
Independence Day (April 18) celebrations became a ZANU-PF celebrations.
The Traditional Chiefs and Kraal Heads because leaders of ZANU-PF in their areas. And unless these leaders were loyal to ZANU-PF and ensured the people in their areas voted and supported ZANU-PF, there would not receive benefits from the government. These leaders even threatened their people with eviction if it turned out they were opposition supporters.
The Police became a ZANU-PF force. ZANU-PF thugs literally got away with murder, but opposition members were swiftly arrested for some trivial crimes.
The Army was more loyal to ZANU-PF than to the people. Army leaders publicly declared that they would not salute or respect anybody who did not "fight" the liberation struggle.
Youth Training Programmes became training programmes for ZANU-PF militias.
State resources (e.g. army trucks, helicopters, buildings, telephones etc.) were used for ZANU-PF purposes, although the taxpayers came from all political parties. In the 1980s ZANU-PF declared that "ZANU-PF and the government are one", implying there is no separation between party and state.
The deal signed on September 15, clearly spells out that state institutions, events and resources can not be used for party political goals. This means that ZANU-PF can no longer plunder state coffers in order to keep it going. It now has to fund-raise and campaign for support and funding like everybody else. This is a major development because ZANU-PF over the years has had its hand in the till and used the resources to bribe, to brutalise and terrorise opponents.
2. The Deal Will Free the Airwaves and Reform ZBC, The Herald etc.
An effective tool in oppressing people is to control information. That way one can determine what people should hear and read. One can then brainwash people with propaganda, lies and misinformation.
The ZANU-PF led government used this tool effectively and efficiently . Independent media houses were very few and restricted, the major daily news papers, TV and Radio were effectively run by the party.
That way Zimbabwe Television became ZANU-PF Television (both ZTV). It has been a huge challenge for opposition parties to campaign on the airwaves, since independent media was virtually non existent in the country. All TV and Radio stations were state run (sorry, ZANU-PF run!)
The government controlled media was biased and misinformed people, demonised anything and anybody critical of the government.
Therefore the government was never criticized and scrutinised and this led to arrogance, mismanagement and complacency.
This deal stipulates that independent media houses must be given operating licences and there must be a vibrant culture of independent reporting.
This would lead to the government taking the voters more seriously and respecting diverse opinions.
3. The Deal will Bring an Inclusive Government which Limits Mugabe
One can not over emphasize the fact that in both the cabinet and parliament, ZANU-PF will be in the minority. A lot has been said about the fact that Robert Mugabe will be head of state and government, chair cabinet and have some executive powers.
But one should read the document more carefully and see that his powers have been greatly curtailed. He can no longer simply run by decree, veto major decisions or use his powers to threaten, brutalize and hence force his way. He can only function in consultation with the Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai.
One of the reasons why some people are worried about paralysis in this government is exactly the fact that Mugabe can not function as President without Tsvangirai supporting him and vice-versa.
One of the things that makes constitutional democracies function well are "checks-and-balances" which hinder the abuse of power. This has been lacking in Zimbabwe since the 1980 independence.
The agreement will usher in a government which can not abuse power. ZANU-PF and Robert Mugabe can not abuse power.
This is exactly one of the main reasons why Morgan Tsvangirai rejected the previous deal (in August 2008), because it kept Mugabe's powers unchecked. After Thabo Mbeki revised the deal and ensured that this is taken care of, the MDC finally agreed to the deal. Even if it was not first price (total transfer of power) it achieved the next best thing (ensure ZANU-PF's wings are clipped).
The MDC formations can therefore achieve a lot in this inclusive government than what many sceptics are willing to concede.
The question of whether this "marriage" will work is still a valid one, but Robert Mugabe knows that he can not solve the Zimbabwe crisis without the MDC and therefore he will go along and avoid sabotaging it.
Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai and all the progressive forces in this government, civil society and the nation at large (including the Zimbabweans in the diaspora) should therefore take advantage of the huge opportunities given to them by this deal, to lead the nation out of the crisis.
The international community and donors must provide the necessary funding and investment to make this work. They can not afford to allow it to fail and let down the people of Zimbabwe and all the progressive forces that risked their lives to "topple" the Mugabe regime.
If one looks at it, one would see that it is actually a blessing in disguise that the MDC did not get "total power" because now they are under pressure to work hard and deliver the goods to the people. If they do that, they will then "earn" the respect and trust and confidence of the people such that at the next election (between 2010 and 2013), they can bury ZANU-PF and put the Mugabe ghost to rest.
Since a lot of what is in the document had been "leaked" over the last few days, there were no major surprises in the actual document.
Opinions are very divided on this deal and a number of concerns have been raised by many analysts and sceptics.
Some people accept it as the best thing that could have happened to Zimbabwe at this moment, while others reject it completely as a project which will not work and will fail very early in its lifetime.
But the majority of people find themselves in between. There is a wait and see attitude because in as much as there are many excellent things in the agreement, there are also many areas of concern.
As Arthur Mutambara said in his remarks after the signing, this is a compromise document, flaws, warts and all. But it is the best that could be achieved in the current situation in Zimbabwe. It's a first step to the ultimate goal of a democratic and prosperous nation.
Some of the concerns are:
1. How can the parties that have had such strong resentment towards each other work together?
2. Has ZANU-PF/Robert Mugabe changed, from being obsessed with and abusing power to a party and person who can accommodate other opinions?
3. How is the complex government with a cabinet, council of ministers, JOMIC (Joint Monitoring and Implementation Committee) going to work?
4. How will paralysis be avoided i.e. check-mating one another between MDC and ZANU-PF?
5. How does one achieve a change of mindset in ZANU-PF for them to accept that they no longer absolute power?
6. Will the western donor countries (EU, USA, Japan etc) accept this new government, trust that Mugabe is not up to his old tricks and provide the required funding?
These and many other questions, real areas of concern and genuine questions which throw a cloud over the deal. But it is my opinion that there is more good than bad in this deal and I indicated that in my article:
http://alvin-mas.blogspot.com/2008/09/zimbabwe-dealis-glass-half-empty-or.html
This deal must be seen for what it really is, namely a framework for the transition from the Mugabe era to a more democratic dispensation for Zimbabwe. Nothing more and nothing less.
It's a step-wise removal of Mugabe from power, to a new generation of leaders and hopefully a move from ZANU-PF (with all it entails) to another ruling party.
Seen in this context, one would notice that this deal is a very positive achievement.
A study of the agreement document reveals what it will achieve if implemented. Given the dire condition in which the country finds itself, Robert Mugabe has very little choice (if any) than to go along with the deal.
1. The Deal Will Remove State Institutions, Events, Days from the Grip of ZANU-PF
Over the years ZANU-PF has run Zimbabwe as its own private property. Whatever is legitimately owned by Zimbabweans became ZANU-PF's private property and they could do whatever they wanted with it. Here are some examples.
Heroes Acre (a place where national heroes are buried) became a ZANU-PF cemetery. Only ZANU-PF people were buried there at the State's expense.
Independence Day (April 18) celebrations became a ZANU-PF celebrations.
The Traditional Chiefs and Kraal Heads because leaders of ZANU-PF in their areas. And unless these leaders were loyal to ZANU-PF and ensured the people in their areas voted and supported ZANU-PF, there would not receive benefits from the government. These leaders even threatened their people with eviction if it turned out they were opposition supporters.
The Police became a ZANU-PF force. ZANU-PF thugs literally got away with murder, but opposition members were swiftly arrested for some trivial crimes.
The Army was more loyal to ZANU-PF than to the people. Army leaders publicly declared that they would not salute or respect anybody who did not "fight" the liberation struggle.
Youth Training Programmes became training programmes for ZANU-PF militias.
State resources (e.g. army trucks, helicopters, buildings, telephones etc.) were used for ZANU-PF purposes, although the taxpayers came from all political parties. In the 1980s ZANU-PF declared that "ZANU-PF and the government are one", implying there is no separation between party and state.
The deal signed on September 15, clearly spells out that state institutions, events and resources can not be used for party political goals. This means that ZANU-PF can no longer plunder state coffers in order to keep it going. It now has to fund-raise and campaign for support and funding like everybody else. This is a major development because ZANU-PF over the years has had its hand in the till and used the resources to bribe, to brutalise and terrorise opponents.
2. The Deal Will Free the Airwaves and Reform ZBC, The Herald etc.
An effective tool in oppressing people is to control information. That way one can determine what people should hear and read. One can then brainwash people with propaganda, lies and misinformation.
The ZANU-PF led government used this tool effectively and efficiently . Independent media houses were very few and restricted, the major daily news papers, TV and Radio were effectively run by the party.
That way Zimbabwe Television became ZANU-PF Television (both ZTV). It has been a huge challenge for opposition parties to campaign on the airwaves, since independent media was virtually non existent in the country. All TV and Radio stations were state run (sorry, ZANU-PF run!)
The government controlled media was biased and misinformed people, demonised anything and anybody critical of the government.
Therefore the government was never criticized and scrutinised and this led to arrogance, mismanagement and complacency.
This deal stipulates that independent media houses must be given operating licences and there must be a vibrant culture of independent reporting.
This would lead to the government taking the voters more seriously and respecting diverse opinions.
3. The Deal will Bring an Inclusive Government which Limits Mugabe
One can not over emphasize the fact that in both the cabinet and parliament, ZANU-PF will be in the minority. A lot has been said about the fact that Robert Mugabe will be head of state and government, chair cabinet and have some executive powers.
But one should read the document more carefully and see that his powers have been greatly curtailed. He can no longer simply run by decree, veto major decisions or use his powers to threaten, brutalize and hence force his way. He can only function in consultation with the Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai.
One of the reasons why some people are worried about paralysis in this government is exactly the fact that Mugabe can not function as President without Tsvangirai supporting him and vice-versa.
One of the things that makes constitutional democracies function well are "checks-and-balances" which hinder the abuse of power. This has been lacking in Zimbabwe since the 1980 independence.
The agreement will usher in a government which can not abuse power. ZANU-PF and Robert Mugabe can not abuse power.
This is exactly one of the main reasons why Morgan Tsvangirai rejected the previous deal (in August 2008), because it kept Mugabe's powers unchecked. After Thabo Mbeki revised the deal and ensured that this is taken care of, the MDC finally agreed to the deal. Even if it was not first price (total transfer of power) it achieved the next best thing (ensure ZANU-PF's wings are clipped).
The MDC formations can therefore achieve a lot in this inclusive government than what many sceptics are willing to concede.
The question of whether this "marriage" will work is still a valid one, but Robert Mugabe knows that he can not solve the Zimbabwe crisis without the MDC and therefore he will go along and avoid sabotaging it.
Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai and all the progressive forces in this government, civil society and the nation at large (including the Zimbabweans in the diaspora) should therefore take advantage of the huge opportunities given to them by this deal, to lead the nation out of the crisis.
The international community and donors must provide the necessary funding and investment to make this work. They can not afford to allow it to fail and let down the people of Zimbabwe and all the progressive forces that risked their lives to "topple" the Mugabe regime.
If one looks at it, one would see that it is actually a blessing in disguise that the MDC did not get "total power" because now they are under pressure to work hard and deliver the goods to the people. If they do that, they will then "earn" the respect and trust and confidence of the people such that at the next election (between 2010 and 2013), they can bury ZANU-PF and put the Mugabe ghost to rest.
Friday, September 12, 2008
The Zimbabwe Deal..Is the Glass Half Empty or Half Full?
As the details of the deal that was agreed upon between MDC-T, MDC-M and ZANU-PF on 11 September 2008 slowly trickle into the limelight, it is important to understand the implications of such a deal. During the press conference (around 21H30, Harare time) on September 11 2008, South African President Thabo Mbeki announced that there has been unanimous agreement from the three parties, and the principals had signed the documents, but a formal signing ceremony and presentation of the new governement will take place on Monday 15 September at 10H00. Only then will the details of the deal be released.
At about 21Hoo (on Sept 11), Morgan Tsvangirai had come out of the meeting venue and simply said, "We have a deal. President Mbeki will release a statement." From his demeanor, Morgan appeared pleased that he had achieved most of his objectives. Realising that negotiations are always a "give and take", he knew that it was not the ideal (i.e. total power) but it was a deal, he could live with and which the MDC and its supporters and Zimbabweans would accept. But like the EU spokesperson said, we will have to wait to see the details on monday to see what the MDC finally accepted as fair and equitable.
Highlights of Deal
The following has been gleaned so far from sources concerning the main aspects of the deal:
1.Robert Mugabe (ZANU-PF) becomes State President with two deputies from Zanu PF;
2. Morgan Tsvangirai (MDC-T) becomes Prime Minister with two deputies, one from MDC-M and one from MDC-T;
3. Mugabe, as head of state and government, to chair cabinet of 31 ministers;
4. Tsvangirai to preside over a council of ministers, supervises ministers, formulates and implements policies, sits in National Security Council (JOC) and heads government business in parliament;
5. Zanu PF to have 15 ministers and eight deputy ministers, Tsvangirai’s MDC faction 13 ministers and six deputy ministers and the Arthur Mutambara faction three ministers and 1 deputy minister;
6. Provincial governors to be shared among the three parties;
7. If an elected representative (MPs and Senators) dies or is recalled by their party 12 months from the day of signing, none of the other parties to the deal will contest the by-election;
8. The "inclusive government" will remain in power for a maximum five years. A review of the power-sharing deal will take place in 18 months, and every year thereafter;
9. New constitution after 18 months.
10. Constitutional Amendment to be done immediately to facilitate implementation of the agreement.
Why Such A Deal Might Be The Only Feasible Way Forward?
Many Zimbabweans were hoping for a complete power transfer from Mugabe to Tsvangirai. Who would blame them, given the over 11 million % inflation, over 90% unemployment, broken down economy, political violence and deaths of thousands at the hands of Mugabe etc.
But a look at the situation reveals that, desireable by many as this might be, it is not the reality on the ground. ZANU-PF has 99 MPs, MDC-T has 100 MPs (difference of 1 MP) and MDC-M has 10MPs. Mugabe got 43% and Tsvangirai 47% in the presidential elections on March 29, 2008. We could argue that the playing field was not even and if it had been even, Tsvangirai would have won by more than 50%. However this would be difficult to prove because it would depend on projections and speculations. The facilitator would also have had a difficult time "selling" this to ZANU-PF.
The voting patterns therefore show that both ZANU-PF and MDC-T have almost equal support in Zimbabwe. I deal with the question of "Why 43% of Zimbabweans still voted for Mugabe" in my article
http://alvin-mas.blogspot.com/2008/07/why-43-still-voted-for-robert-mugabe-on.html
At about 21Hoo (on Sept 11), Morgan Tsvangirai had come out of the meeting venue and simply said, "We have a deal. President Mbeki will release a statement." From his demeanor, Morgan appeared pleased that he had achieved most of his objectives. Realising that negotiations are always a "give and take", he knew that it was not the ideal (i.e. total power) but it was a deal, he could live with and which the MDC and its supporters and Zimbabweans would accept. But like the EU spokesperson said, we will have to wait to see the details on monday to see what the MDC finally accepted as fair and equitable.
Highlights of Deal
The following has been gleaned so far from sources concerning the main aspects of the deal:
1.Robert Mugabe (ZANU-PF) becomes State President with two deputies from Zanu PF;
2. Morgan Tsvangirai (MDC-T) becomes Prime Minister with two deputies, one from MDC-M and one from MDC-T;
3. Mugabe, as head of state and government, to chair cabinet of 31 ministers;
4. Tsvangirai to preside over a council of ministers, supervises ministers, formulates and implements policies, sits in National Security Council (JOC) and heads government business in parliament;
5. Zanu PF to have 15 ministers and eight deputy ministers, Tsvangirai’s MDC faction 13 ministers and six deputy ministers and the Arthur Mutambara faction three ministers and 1 deputy minister;
6. Provincial governors to be shared among the three parties;
7. If an elected representative (MPs and Senators) dies or is recalled by their party 12 months from the day of signing, none of the other parties to the deal will contest the by-election;
8. The "inclusive government" will remain in power for a maximum five years. A review of the power-sharing deal will take place in 18 months, and every year thereafter;
9. New constitution after 18 months.
10. Constitutional Amendment to be done immediately to facilitate implementation of the agreement.
Why Such A Deal Might Be The Only Feasible Way Forward?
Many Zimbabweans were hoping for a complete power transfer from Mugabe to Tsvangirai. Who would blame them, given the over 11 million % inflation, over 90% unemployment, broken down economy, political violence and deaths of thousands at the hands of Mugabe etc.
But a look at the situation reveals that, desireable by many as this might be, it is not the reality on the ground. ZANU-PF has 99 MPs, MDC-T has 100 MPs (difference of 1 MP) and MDC-M has 10MPs. Mugabe got 43% and Tsvangirai 47% in the presidential elections on March 29, 2008. We could argue that the playing field was not even and if it had been even, Tsvangirai would have won by more than 50%. However this would be difficult to prove because it would depend on projections and speculations. The facilitator would also have had a difficult time "selling" this to ZANU-PF.
The voting patterns therefore show that both ZANU-PF and MDC-T have almost equal support in Zimbabwe. I deal with the question of "Why 43% of Zimbabweans still voted for Mugabe" in my article
http://alvin-mas.blogspot.com/2008/07/why-43-still-voted-for-robert-mugabe-on.html
Therefore it is the way Zimbabweans voted on March 29, which put the MDC in a difficult position during negotiations. If the vote for the MDC had been overwhelming, Mugabe would have had no choice but to give up all the power.
Therefore the facilitator President Mbeki (whether we agree with his approach or not) had a hard time "forcing" Mugabe to give up ALL the power and therefore the MDC had to accept the following:
1. Delicate Balance: The agreement had to be a delicate balancing act that takes into account the balance of power as expressed by the March 29 election results.
2. SADC/AU/Mbeki's Reluctance to Push Mugabe: The African leaders were not keen to push Mugabe to go. This reluctance is largely due to the fact that most of them are not democrats and as Mugabe rightly said "I want to see the finger that points at me and see if it is clean or dirty." This is an institutional weakness of both SADC and AU. Zimbabwe needs to be part of SADC and AU and the MDC knew that the chances of getting a deal would be through these African organisations. The way world politics works is such that even if the USA and UK and the EU want to force change in Zimbabwe, their options are very limited. Even the UN Security Council could be limited in its activities by a simple veto from Russia and China (which too are not really democratic and take sides with many undemocratic leaders of Africa) . The MDc therefore had to go into the talks knowing that there are things they could not change in the SADC/AU approach, namely the reluctance to push Mugabe too far. The goal therefore would have been to make the best out of it.
3. Re-running the Presidential Election Not Feasible At This Moment: Given that the March 29 election did not produce an outright winner (according th ZEC results) and June 27 elections were a sham, one would have said, let's have another re-run soon and let the people decide. But the terror unleashed by ZANU-PF on the people between May and June this year left the nation traumatized and really not keen to have another election so soon. The only way to persuade the electorate to go to vote would have been through a UN monitored and run election. However the logistics of such an exercise would have required more time to put in place i.e. a the UN would need a vote to do that and hope there is no veto in the Security Council, prepare the ground for an election, put systems in place, fund it etc. This would have taken about 12 to 18 months to put in place (assuming that everything goes well and there are no objections). Zimbabwe would have had no legitimate government for another 18 months or so. Given the hemorrhaging of the economy and the utter devastation currently existing, one would wonder if the nation would have "survived" that long. A greater influx of refugees into the neighbouring nations would have occured.
Given the above and many other issues, the best way out of the situation was to "deal with the devil" (as the MDC would see it). There had to be a way of having to live with the fact that Mugabe had been a factor in Zimbabwe politics for a long time and he wasn't going to disappear overnight.
The strategy would then have to shift from taking over all power in one stroke to systematically chipping away Mugabe/ZANU-PF's power and work one's way to the levers of power. This would then be a phased "take over" which could last anything from 2 to 4 or 5 years. And this is exactly what this deal is all about and why the MDC accepted it as the second best way of removing the Mugabe regime from power. This deal, inspite of its weaknesses, has some very positive aspects to it.
The Positive Aspects of Deal
1. Changing the Zimbabwe Constitution
The current Zimbabwe constitution gives the President so much power such that he can run the country with no parliament. Mugabe has used his powers to basically run Zimbabwe like his private property. He can hire and fire anybody, he can go to war (e.g. DRC in the 1990s) without parliament approval, he can manipulate the justice system, electoral system and government without being accountable to anybody. That is one reason, he didn't want to give up the executive presidency. He knew what another executive president vested with the powers he currently have could do. This deal allows for the constitution to be changed/overhauled in the next 18 months. This has always been one of the major goals of the opposition movements over the last 20 years. This deal finally makes that a reality.
There are many repressive laws in the country and these need to be removed e.g. lack of press freedom, no right of assembly or hold a rally without police permission, partisan police and army leadership etc.
2. The Demilitarisation of State Institutions
The amount of power given to the MDC in the new government allows them to push for the demilitarisation of state institutions. Robert Mugabe has over the years been using the military and the army to run state institutions. The ZEC chairman during the 2008 elections (George Chiweshe) is an ex-army general, for example. These military people are fiercely loyal to Mugabe and have closed off any room for political activity to the oppositon. Morgan Tsvangirai as Prime Minister will be a powerful member of the National Security Council and can work to send the army back to the barracks and let civilians run the country. That would take away a lot of what Muagbe has used over the years to stay in power.
3. MDC Controls Parliament/Has Majority in Cabinet
The MDC-T managed to win the powerful Speaker position and they have authority over parliament. If MDC-M and some moderate ZANU-PF members are pulled in, MDC-T as the largest party in parliament can exert lots of influence on the direction of the country, irrespective of who chairs cabinet. Both MDC factions have more ministers in cabinet than ZANU-PF. If it came down to a vote in cabinet, Mugabe can not have his way. Even if there is some tension between MDC-T and MDC-M, they are in principle united in wanting to see Mugabe leave the scene and eliminate ZANU-PF's stranglehold on the country.
4. MDC-T Controls Majority of Local Governments
The MDC-T won the majority of local government elections on March 29. They won ALL major urban municipal elections. This puts them in a powerful position to influence the state at a local and grassroot level.
5. Create Space for Oppositon
The deal creates space for multi-party democracy in Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe has always been effectively a one-party state since 1980. There was never an opposition party to challenge ZANU-PF and this led to the Mugabe regime becoming arrogant and believing that they own Zimbabwe. That is why, even after losing the March 29 election, they still behave like they have power. This deal will clean up the system and grant the nation many civil liberties
6. Healing of the Nation
The hatred that exists in some places between ZANU-PF and MDC supporters can not be ignored. For the country to move forward a process of healing is necessary and this healing would have been more difficult if the deal had resulted in an "winner take all" situation. It is important that no party comes out feeling that they have lost everything. This would simply have perpetuated the animosity.
7. The Imminent Departure of Mugabe
Robert Mugabe and his personality has been a major contributing factor to the "disaster" in Zimbabwe. Even within his own party, he has failed to lead, prepare for a successor and open up the democratic space in the party. At 84 years old and with his party divided (there are major rifts within ZANU-PF) it won't be long before he is either removed by his own people or before he quits. The divisions within ZANU-PF have been "hidden" behind a "united front against the MDC" and with a coalition government, the MDC can no longer be viewed as an "enemy" and the divisions within ZANU-PF will become even more evident. This deal will facilitate Mugabe's departure from the ZANU-PF leadership and given the divisions in the party, the party might fragament into two or more camps, and thus weakening it severely. There are people who argue, that without Mugabe, ZANU-PF will not survive, just like UNIP in Zambia "died" after Kenneth Kaunda left office.
7. Getting the Economy Going
Maybe the most important task of the new government would be to get the economy going. The MDC had rejected the previous deal because it gave responsibilities to the Prime Minister, but very little authority, if at all. This deal gives some clout to the Prime Minister to lead and influence and conduct governement business. This would enable the MDC led government to get the economy back on track. This of course requires massive financial injection into the economy and since the West has indicated that they will not deal with Mugabe, Morgan Tsvangirai, can raise his profile by leading the reconstruction of the nation. Given the goodwill of the western donors towards an MDC led governement, this deal would help in the process.
Conclusion
This agreement is not the 100% ideal which the MDC initially demanded, but given the complexity of the situation, it might just be the best that is available.This agreement also keeps the MDC true to itself and to keep the promise it made to the Zimbabweans that "the MDC will not let the people down or sell-out to Mugabe or buckle to the tricks and pressures from ZANU-PF or Thabo Mbeki or SADC."
We all hope that this deal marks an important step in the process of recovery and healing for Zimbabwe. It is now up to the leaders to step up to the challenge and lead the nation.
And my opinion is that the glass is indeed 80% full and we can live with that!
Monday, September 08, 2008
The Zapiro Cartoon and The ANC Hypocricy
The ruling party of South Africa, the ANC (African National Congress), is up in arms with Zapiro (www.zapiro.com) and The Sunday Times over the cartoon printed in 7 September 2008 edition of the Sunday Times. The carton depicts the ANC president (Jacob Zuma) unzipping his pants, while the ANC Youth League president Julius Malema, the Secretary Generals of the ANC, SACP and COSATU Gwede Mantashe, Blade Nzimande and Zwelinzima Vavi respectively, pinning down "Lady Justice". And Gwede Mantashe urges (in the cartoon) Jacob Zuma to "Go for it, Boss." The cartoon implies that Malema, Mantashe, Nzimande and Vavi are holding the "Lady" so that Jacob Zuma can rape her.
In order to understand the significance of this cartoon and the "war" that has broken out between the ANC together with its alliance partners (SACP, COSATU) and Zapiro/Sunday Times, one must remember the trial of Jacob Zuma for allegations of rape in 2006. He was accused of raping an HIV-positive woman, who is the daughter of a fellow liberation struggle comrade. Zuma was found not guilty, but in the trial Jacob Zuma told the court that he took a shower soon after having consensual sex with the woman in order to reduce the likelihood of getting infected with the HI-virus (hence the depiction of him with a shower-head above him).
One must also take into account the fact that Jacob Zuma is being accused by the National Prosecuting Authority for corruption and might go to trial on these charges soon. However the ANC and the alliance partners are against the charges and suggest that the trial is a political trial and a set up by the state to hinder Zuma from becoming the next State President (if the ANC win the 2009 elections). In the process of vigorously fighting against the charges, the ANC leaders have constantly attacked the judiciary as being on a war-path with Zuma. Judges have been accused for being biased and the judiciary system discredited. The ANC leadership is demanding that the charges be dropped, otherwise they will mobilise the people and make the country ungovernable. In other words, they are blackmailing the state. It is with this in mind, that Zapiro must have decided to depict the "rape of the justice system" by the ANC and its partners. Whether the cartoonist crossed the line or not is as a matter of fact of secondary importance. There are some fundamental and more important issues that Zapiro is raising and which have become evident from the response of the ANC to the cartoon.
1. There is a huge threat being posed by the ANC and its partners on the state institutions that are the basis of a functional democratic system. When the leaders of the ruling party give the impression that the judiciary system in the country can not be trusted and relied upon, the message sent to the criminals out there is that, they can disobey the judiciary system.
2. The judiciary system can not mobilise masses to toy-toy and demonstrate on their behalf like the ANC/COSATU/SACP can and it is therefore unfair for the political parties to "fight using unfair methods."
3. The ANC and its alliance partners it being highly hypocritical by complaining that Zapiro and the Sunday Times are "punching below the belt" with this cartoon, while they (ANC et al) are constantly "punching below the belt" in their so-called "revolution and struggle." They have accused the judges of being "counter-revolutionary", and publicly screamed that "they would kill for Zuma" i.e. inciting violence. They have accused Judges of deciding cases in a shebeen (pub) etc. Whoever dares criticise the methods used by the ANC (in their defence of Zuma) gets attacked. Professor Barney Pityana (Vice Chancellor of UNISA) and a world-renowned scholar and academic was humiliated and castigated for questioning the integrity of some of the ANC leaders and their fitness for state office.
4. The ANC and its alliance partners doesn't seem to understand that there is a difference between fighting against the apartheid system and "fighting" in a democratic state. For a party which commands over 2/3 majority in parliament, they seem to have a huge inferiority complex.
Their fight for Zuma is in essence a fight against themselves, because the ANC is the governing party and the state institutions they are fighting against (Judiciary, Scorpions etc) are run by them. That sounds like Schizophrenia and split personality disorder.
Zapiro is indeed spot on with his cartoon in the Sunday Times (7 September 2008). He is simply holding a mirror to the ANC leadership for them to see how shameful they look. To declare war against Zapiro and his cartoon without dealing with the underlying message of the cartoon is merely dealing with the symptoms. Indeed the ANC and its alliance partners are "raping" the judiciary.
In order to understand the significance of this cartoon and the "war" that has broken out between the ANC together with its alliance partners (SACP, COSATU) and Zapiro/Sunday Times, one must remember the trial of Jacob Zuma for allegations of rape in 2006. He was accused of raping an HIV-positive woman, who is the daughter of a fellow liberation struggle comrade. Zuma was found not guilty, but in the trial Jacob Zuma told the court that he took a shower soon after having consensual sex with the woman in order to reduce the likelihood of getting infected with the HI-virus (hence the depiction of him with a shower-head above him).
One must also take into account the fact that Jacob Zuma is being accused by the National Prosecuting Authority for corruption and might go to trial on these charges soon. However the ANC and the alliance partners are against the charges and suggest that the trial is a political trial and a set up by the state to hinder Zuma from becoming the next State President (if the ANC win the 2009 elections). In the process of vigorously fighting against the charges, the ANC leaders have constantly attacked the judiciary as being on a war-path with Zuma. Judges have been accused for being biased and the judiciary system discredited. The ANC leadership is demanding that the charges be dropped, otherwise they will mobilise the people and make the country ungovernable. In other words, they are blackmailing the state. It is with this in mind, that Zapiro must have decided to depict the "rape of the justice system" by the ANC and its partners. Whether the cartoonist crossed the line or not is as a matter of fact of secondary importance. There are some fundamental and more important issues that Zapiro is raising and which have become evident from the response of the ANC to the cartoon.
1. There is a huge threat being posed by the ANC and its partners on the state institutions that are the basis of a functional democratic system. When the leaders of the ruling party give the impression that the judiciary system in the country can not be trusted and relied upon, the message sent to the criminals out there is that, they can disobey the judiciary system.
2. The judiciary system can not mobilise masses to toy-toy and demonstrate on their behalf like the ANC/COSATU/SACP can and it is therefore unfair for the political parties to "fight using unfair methods."
3. The ANC and its alliance partners it being highly hypocritical by complaining that Zapiro and the Sunday Times are "punching below the belt" with this cartoon, while they (ANC et al) are constantly "punching below the belt" in their so-called "revolution and struggle." They have accused the judges of being "counter-revolutionary", and publicly screamed that "they would kill for Zuma" i.e. inciting violence. They have accused Judges of deciding cases in a shebeen (pub) etc. Whoever dares criticise the methods used by the ANC (in their defence of Zuma) gets attacked. Professor Barney Pityana (Vice Chancellor of UNISA) and a world-renowned scholar and academic was humiliated and castigated for questioning the integrity of some of the ANC leaders and their fitness for state office.
4. The ANC and its alliance partners doesn't seem to understand that there is a difference between fighting against the apartheid system and "fighting" in a democratic state. For a party which commands over 2/3 majority in parliament, they seem to have a huge inferiority complex.
Their fight for Zuma is in essence a fight against themselves, because the ANC is the governing party and the state institutions they are fighting against (Judiciary, Scorpions etc) are run by them. That sounds like Schizophrenia and split personality disorder.
Zapiro is indeed spot on with his cartoon in the Sunday Times (7 September 2008). He is simply holding a mirror to the ANC leadership for them to see how shameful they look. To declare war against Zapiro and his cartoon without dealing with the underlying message of the cartoon is merely dealing with the symptoms. Indeed the ANC and its alliance partners are "raping" the judiciary.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Is This the End for Mugabe?
Many times the demise of Robert Mugabe and his government has been prophesied over the last 10 years, but each time these prophesies have not come true. Many analysts have in the past predicted that the Mugabe government will collapse in 3 or 6 or 9 or 12 months (mainly due to the economy that is imploding) but it appears like they got it wrong each time. However two things happened this week (on 25 and 26 August 2008) which, in my opinion, signal the end of the Mugabe regime as we know it.
These things are namely, the election of Lovemore Moyo (National Chairman of MDC - T) as Speaker of Parliament in Zimbabwe. This is the first time since the 1980 independence that a non-ZANU speaker has been elected.
The second event was the jeering and booing of Robert Mugabe during his speech to open parliament on Tuesday, 26 August. Many people, including myself, have been scratching their heads to remember if Mugabe has ever been booed publicly (and on live Zimbabwe Television) since he became (then) Prime Minister of Zimbabwe in 1980. Besides the odd screaming from a demonstrator or journalist on his trips overseas (especially after the violent land invasions in the early 2000s), Mugabe has been shielded by a strong security apparatus from any public humiliation. In Zimbabwe it is a crime just to make derogatory remarks about Mugabe (even if he is not present to hear it). Some people have even been arrested for making insulting comments about him in a pub or on the bus. The only thing Mugabe has had in abundance are standing ovations and loud cheers and praises in many places in Africa (especially) where many have seen him as a hero. Therefore the jeers and booing in parliament this week must have been a nightmare and a scary dream for Mugabe.But before these two events took place this week, it is important to look at their build up.
The MOU signed on 21 July by the leaders of the three parties (ZANU-PF, MDC-T and MDC-M) was meant to lead to an inclusive government. The negotiations however hit a barrier, which all of us knew they were soon going to hit. The question of who has the real powers in this new government was always going to be a difficult issue. Mugabe would not give up power and Morgan Tsvangirai would claim that, he as the winner of the only credible election in 2008 (March 29), should have executive powers.That issue could not be resolved, even though Thabo Mbeki (South African president) spent 3 days and nights in Harare, talking to the three leaders. It was then hoped that the 17-19 August SADC Summit in Sandton (Johannesburg, South Africa) would resolve the issue. However this summit proved beyond doubt the incompetency of SADC, even to abide by its own guidelines. Rather than insisting that whatever power sharing deal is signed, it must be based on the March 29 elections (giving Tsvangirai more executive powers than Mugabe), SADC tried to appease Mugabe by allowing him to effectively remain executive President, who could hire and fire the Prime Minister (a post they wanted Tsvangirai to take), chair and manage cabinet/government affairs. One wonders what Tsvangirai's Prime Minister's job would then be. Tsvangirai rejected the deal, in spite of SADC's pressure and an attempt to paint him as the spoiler of a solution to the Zimbabwe's problems.
But Thabo Mbeki (in his mediation) had noticed that the leaders of the smaller MDC faction were inclined to go into an alliance with Mugabe and he saw a loophole he could exploit to pressure Tsvangirai to give in and accept the deal. It must be noted that the entire top 5 leaders of the MDC-Mutambara lost in the March 29 parliamentary election. None of them were elected into parliament. However 10 of their candidates got elected into parliament. Prof. Mutambara himself did not contest the presidential election, but rather endorsed Dr. Simba Makoni (an ex ZANU-PF member who left the party a few weeks before the elections). And since the MDC-M leaders had no posts in national politics, it is likely that they saw a deal with Mugabe as a way of securing positions in government. Morgan Tsvangirai still resisted the deal even though he suspected that the Mugabe-Mutambara deal could be used to sideline him. It is almost certain that Thabo Mbeki made this clear to Tsvangirai i.e. sign or you will be isolated. Fortunately for Tsvangirai, the economic solution for Zimbabwe would require massive injection of funds from the West and recognition of the new government. The EU and the USA had made it clear that any government not led by Tsvangirai or in which he doesn't play a significant role, will not be recognized and therefore not funded by them. That was still Tsvangirai's greatest bargaining chip.In spite of this, SADC still decided to go ahead with the so-called Plan B (i.e. a Mugabe-Mutambara deal) and they gave Mugabe the green light to convene parliament while the talks still continued.
MDC-T was against the convening of parliament, but decided to go along with it for fear of losing the ground they already won as the biggest party in parliament. The plan was very clear in that ZANU-PFs 99 seats, plus MDC-M 10 seats and maybe Jonathan Moyo (an independent MP who used to be Mugabe's Information Minister) would be a 110 majority compared to Tsvangirai's 100 MDC-T seats. Based on this calculation, they could elect a Speaker of Parliament and have a majority to justify forming a government. That way, they could "ignore" the March 29 presidential election results and the violence which led to Tsvangirai pulling out of the June 27 run-off, as well as the reports from the SADC, AU and PAP Election Observer Missions, which all unanimously declared that the June 27 election was not free and fair and should have no relevance.In order to sweeten the deal for Mutambara, ZANU-PF did not field a candidate for the speaker's post, but rather instructed its members to vote for Paul Themba Nyathi, the MDC-M candidate. MDC-T fielded Lovemore Moyo as candidate. And then came the high drama.
In order to ensure that nothing goes wrong the police were waiting at parliament to arrest some MPs from MDC-T on some trumped up charges and thus hinder them from voting. But fortunately the police only managed to arrest 2 MPs (others managed to avoid arrest by using the back door of parliament). Which means that there were now only 98 MPs from Tsvangirai's party in parliament on Monday 25 August, against the rest of the 110 MPs.After the swearing in of the MPs, they now had to elect a Speaker of Parliament and there was shock all around as Lovemore Moyo of the MDC-T won the election by 110 to 98 votes. The shock was due to the fact that the "numbers did not add up" and the Plan B had backfired on all the "partners in crime" i.e. Mugabe-Mutambara-Mbeki-SADC etc.Assuming that all 98 MPs from Tsvangirai's party voted to Moyo, where did the other 12 votes come from?The vote was by secret ballot and unless the "culprits" confess, we will never know.The other issues is, even if one assumes that all 10 MPs from the Mutambara party voted AGAINST their own candidate (although it is difficult to imagine that not a single one voted for their own candidate Nyathi), there must be at least 2 MPs from ZANU-PF who voted for the MDC-T candidate. The more likely scenario is that about 6 MPs from MDC-M and another 6 from ZANU-PF voted for Lovemore Moyo.This vote has huge significance in Zimbabwean politics and sent shockwaves all around.
1. The MDC-Mutambara leadership is not being supported by all its MPs on the issue of a deal with Mugabe. Most of the MPs are from Matebeleland and know the massacres Mugabe perpetrated in Matebelelend in the 1980s. They also know how Mugabe used violence to destroy and then swallow ZAPU (led by Joshua Nkomo). They never forgave Mugabe and will never trust him. Even if they disagree with Tsvangirai, given a choice, they would chose him rather than Mugabe.
2. Mutambara can not "deliver" the 10 votes of his MPs to the Mugabe government and there is no guarantee that a deal signed between him and Mugabe would result in a majority in parliament.
3. Some MPs from ZANU-PF defied the party order to vote for Nyathi. This is unprecedented in Zimbabwean politics. During the last 28years ZANU-PF has managed to whip its MPs into line, especially on such important issues. This vote means that there are ZANU-PF members prepared to break ranks with Mugabe and therefore, even Mugabe himself doesn't seem to have all his MPs under control. This is however not surprising because there is a significant section ZANU-PF members who are against Mugabe continuing as party leader and were against him declaring himself party presidential candidate.
And now embodied by their major win of the Speaker's position the day before, the MDC-T decided indeed to attend the opening of parliament by a "President" Mugabe, they considered illegitimate. Rather that protest through non-attendance, they decided to attend and protest loudly and visibly. Protocol and parliamentary procedures require that all the MPs and Senators rise to their feet as the President enters parliament. But as Mugabe entered parliament on August 26, the opposition MPs remained seated in a sign of defiance and protest.And all throughout his 30 minute address, Mugabe was booed and jeered by the MDC MPs. Of course if they had done so at a function outside parliament, the state security agents would have intervened, arrested or beaten them up. But they knew that there is parliamentary privilege which "allows" for free expression inside parliament, they took full advantage of it.
Mugabe was visibly shaken, and his situation was made even worse by the fact that he was seating all alone on a seat higher than the rest and was looking down into a hostile group of MPs.It is still mysterious that the Zimbabwe Television which was broadcasting the event live, continued beaming such an image to the nation. ZTV is under the strict control of ZANU-PF and one would have expected them to stop the transmission in order to spare Mugabe the embarrassment.
What does this all mean? Mugabe is definitely weakened by the events of this week. He has no control of parliament and his plan to go into a deal with Mutambara doesn't seem to work. Soon after the loss of their candidate for speaker, MDC-M issued a statement that they will not go into a deal with Mugabe. They have realised what everybody had known for a long time i.e. the majority of Zimbabweans do not want a deal that will keep Mugabe in power. Whoever does such a deal, will lose the people's support. Thabo Mbeki and SADC are quickly running out of options to secure their preferred option of a solution to the Zimbabwean crisis i.e. one which will leave Mugabe still in charge.
It is now clear that Mbeki prefers to keep Mugabe in charge (even after Mugabe lost the election) than have an MDC led government. Why Mbeki has such a weird position is still a mystery. Now that Mugabe's ZANU-PF is a minority party and the MDC-M party can't deliver the other MPs, the options for SADC have dwindled to one. The only option left (besides giving up and simply walking away, leaving Zimbabwe to collapse) is to do what the Zimbabweans said on March 29 i.e. MDC-T is the favoured party and Tsvangirai the favoured leader.Whether Mbeki and SADC and Mugabe are happy about it or not, is irrelevant. The people spoke and their voice must be respected.Is this the end for Mugabe? I believe it is....because like Bill Clinton and the Democratic Party said in 1991/92 as they campaigned against a highly popular President George Bush Snr..."it is the economy, stupid!"
Mugabe's government is bankrupt, the economy has basically collapsed with all the implications for the region (e.g. refugees and illegal immigrants in South Africa, Botswana etc.), the only solution will be based on Western funds ploughed into Zimbabwe. But these funds are linked to the March 29 results and without Morgan Tsvangirai signing on any deal for power sharing, those funds won't be forthcoming. Thabo Mbeki knows it and everybody knows that.Thabo Mbeki is slowly (very slowly) realising that he might leave the South African Presidency with a tattered image and his loss of credibility on Zimbabwe might mean that he will not be a respected statesman after he leaves office. It is a fact that Mbeki will still want to be active in world affairs after 2009 (when he leaves office). If his highly criticised mediation in Zimbabwe lead to nothing, he will be blamed for it and considered a failure in dealing with the problem.
At some point soon, Mbeki will have to sacrifice Mugabe to rescue his image and legacy. Mugabe is so weak now and has very few friends left and an increasing number of African leaders are now publicly criticising him, one would think that it would be relatively easy for Thabo Mbeki to finally tell him that his time is up and he must go and make way for a new crop of leaders.How the Zimbabwe crisis will someday be resolved is still a matter of speculation, but the images beamed by ZTV on Tuesday afternoon, were that of a Robert Mugabe who looked tired and was quickly losing grip of the reigns of power. What is now important is to manage his departure.
These things are namely, the election of Lovemore Moyo (National Chairman of MDC - T) as Speaker of Parliament in Zimbabwe. This is the first time since the 1980 independence that a non-ZANU speaker has been elected.
The second event was the jeering and booing of Robert Mugabe during his speech to open parliament on Tuesday, 26 August. Many people, including myself, have been scratching their heads to remember if Mugabe has ever been booed publicly (and on live Zimbabwe Television) since he became (then) Prime Minister of Zimbabwe in 1980. Besides the odd screaming from a demonstrator or journalist on his trips overseas (especially after the violent land invasions in the early 2000s), Mugabe has been shielded by a strong security apparatus from any public humiliation. In Zimbabwe it is a crime just to make derogatory remarks about Mugabe (even if he is not present to hear it). Some people have even been arrested for making insulting comments about him in a pub or on the bus. The only thing Mugabe has had in abundance are standing ovations and loud cheers and praises in many places in Africa (especially) where many have seen him as a hero. Therefore the jeers and booing in parliament this week must have been a nightmare and a scary dream for Mugabe.But before these two events took place this week, it is important to look at their build up.
The MOU signed on 21 July by the leaders of the three parties (ZANU-PF, MDC-T and MDC-M) was meant to lead to an inclusive government. The negotiations however hit a barrier, which all of us knew they were soon going to hit. The question of who has the real powers in this new government was always going to be a difficult issue. Mugabe would not give up power and Morgan Tsvangirai would claim that, he as the winner of the only credible election in 2008 (March 29), should have executive powers.That issue could not be resolved, even though Thabo Mbeki (South African president) spent 3 days and nights in Harare, talking to the three leaders. It was then hoped that the 17-19 August SADC Summit in Sandton (Johannesburg, South Africa) would resolve the issue. However this summit proved beyond doubt the incompetency of SADC, even to abide by its own guidelines. Rather than insisting that whatever power sharing deal is signed, it must be based on the March 29 elections (giving Tsvangirai more executive powers than Mugabe), SADC tried to appease Mugabe by allowing him to effectively remain executive President, who could hire and fire the Prime Minister (a post they wanted Tsvangirai to take), chair and manage cabinet/government affairs. One wonders what Tsvangirai's Prime Minister's job would then be. Tsvangirai rejected the deal, in spite of SADC's pressure and an attempt to paint him as the spoiler of a solution to the Zimbabwe's problems.
But Thabo Mbeki (in his mediation) had noticed that the leaders of the smaller MDC faction were inclined to go into an alliance with Mugabe and he saw a loophole he could exploit to pressure Tsvangirai to give in and accept the deal. It must be noted that the entire top 5 leaders of the MDC-Mutambara lost in the March 29 parliamentary election. None of them were elected into parliament. However 10 of their candidates got elected into parliament. Prof. Mutambara himself did not contest the presidential election, but rather endorsed Dr. Simba Makoni (an ex ZANU-PF member who left the party a few weeks before the elections). And since the MDC-M leaders had no posts in national politics, it is likely that they saw a deal with Mugabe as a way of securing positions in government. Morgan Tsvangirai still resisted the deal even though he suspected that the Mugabe-Mutambara deal could be used to sideline him. It is almost certain that Thabo Mbeki made this clear to Tsvangirai i.e. sign or you will be isolated. Fortunately for Tsvangirai, the economic solution for Zimbabwe would require massive injection of funds from the West and recognition of the new government. The EU and the USA had made it clear that any government not led by Tsvangirai or in which he doesn't play a significant role, will not be recognized and therefore not funded by them. That was still Tsvangirai's greatest bargaining chip.In spite of this, SADC still decided to go ahead with the so-called Plan B (i.e. a Mugabe-Mutambara deal) and they gave Mugabe the green light to convene parliament while the talks still continued.
MDC-T was against the convening of parliament, but decided to go along with it for fear of losing the ground they already won as the biggest party in parliament. The plan was very clear in that ZANU-PFs 99 seats, plus MDC-M 10 seats and maybe Jonathan Moyo (an independent MP who used to be Mugabe's Information Minister) would be a 110 majority compared to Tsvangirai's 100 MDC-T seats. Based on this calculation, they could elect a Speaker of Parliament and have a majority to justify forming a government. That way, they could "ignore" the March 29 presidential election results and the violence which led to Tsvangirai pulling out of the June 27 run-off, as well as the reports from the SADC, AU and PAP Election Observer Missions, which all unanimously declared that the June 27 election was not free and fair and should have no relevance.In order to sweeten the deal for Mutambara, ZANU-PF did not field a candidate for the speaker's post, but rather instructed its members to vote for Paul Themba Nyathi, the MDC-M candidate. MDC-T fielded Lovemore Moyo as candidate. And then came the high drama.
In order to ensure that nothing goes wrong the police were waiting at parliament to arrest some MPs from MDC-T on some trumped up charges and thus hinder them from voting. But fortunately the police only managed to arrest 2 MPs (others managed to avoid arrest by using the back door of parliament). Which means that there were now only 98 MPs from Tsvangirai's party in parliament on Monday 25 August, against the rest of the 110 MPs.After the swearing in of the MPs, they now had to elect a Speaker of Parliament and there was shock all around as Lovemore Moyo of the MDC-T won the election by 110 to 98 votes. The shock was due to the fact that the "numbers did not add up" and the Plan B had backfired on all the "partners in crime" i.e. Mugabe-Mutambara-Mbeki-SADC etc.Assuming that all 98 MPs from Tsvangirai's party voted to Moyo, where did the other 12 votes come from?The vote was by secret ballot and unless the "culprits" confess, we will never know.The other issues is, even if one assumes that all 10 MPs from the Mutambara party voted AGAINST their own candidate (although it is difficult to imagine that not a single one voted for their own candidate Nyathi), there must be at least 2 MPs from ZANU-PF who voted for the MDC-T candidate. The more likely scenario is that about 6 MPs from MDC-M and another 6 from ZANU-PF voted for Lovemore Moyo.This vote has huge significance in Zimbabwean politics and sent shockwaves all around.
1. The MDC-Mutambara leadership is not being supported by all its MPs on the issue of a deal with Mugabe. Most of the MPs are from Matebeleland and know the massacres Mugabe perpetrated in Matebelelend in the 1980s. They also know how Mugabe used violence to destroy and then swallow ZAPU (led by Joshua Nkomo). They never forgave Mugabe and will never trust him. Even if they disagree with Tsvangirai, given a choice, they would chose him rather than Mugabe.
2. Mutambara can not "deliver" the 10 votes of his MPs to the Mugabe government and there is no guarantee that a deal signed between him and Mugabe would result in a majority in parliament.
3. Some MPs from ZANU-PF defied the party order to vote for Nyathi. This is unprecedented in Zimbabwean politics. During the last 28years ZANU-PF has managed to whip its MPs into line, especially on such important issues. This vote means that there are ZANU-PF members prepared to break ranks with Mugabe and therefore, even Mugabe himself doesn't seem to have all his MPs under control. This is however not surprising because there is a significant section ZANU-PF members who are against Mugabe continuing as party leader and were against him declaring himself party presidential candidate.
And now embodied by their major win of the Speaker's position the day before, the MDC-T decided indeed to attend the opening of parliament by a "President" Mugabe, they considered illegitimate. Rather that protest through non-attendance, they decided to attend and protest loudly and visibly. Protocol and parliamentary procedures require that all the MPs and Senators rise to their feet as the President enters parliament. But as Mugabe entered parliament on August 26, the opposition MPs remained seated in a sign of defiance and protest.And all throughout his 30 minute address, Mugabe was booed and jeered by the MDC MPs. Of course if they had done so at a function outside parliament, the state security agents would have intervened, arrested or beaten them up. But they knew that there is parliamentary privilege which "allows" for free expression inside parliament, they took full advantage of it.
Mugabe was visibly shaken, and his situation was made even worse by the fact that he was seating all alone on a seat higher than the rest and was looking down into a hostile group of MPs.It is still mysterious that the Zimbabwe Television which was broadcasting the event live, continued beaming such an image to the nation. ZTV is under the strict control of ZANU-PF and one would have expected them to stop the transmission in order to spare Mugabe the embarrassment.
What does this all mean? Mugabe is definitely weakened by the events of this week. He has no control of parliament and his plan to go into a deal with Mutambara doesn't seem to work. Soon after the loss of their candidate for speaker, MDC-M issued a statement that they will not go into a deal with Mugabe. They have realised what everybody had known for a long time i.e. the majority of Zimbabweans do not want a deal that will keep Mugabe in power. Whoever does such a deal, will lose the people's support. Thabo Mbeki and SADC are quickly running out of options to secure their preferred option of a solution to the Zimbabwean crisis i.e. one which will leave Mugabe still in charge.
It is now clear that Mbeki prefers to keep Mugabe in charge (even after Mugabe lost the election) than have an MDC led government. Why Mbeki has such a weird position is still a mystery. Now that Mugabe's ZANU-PF is a minority party and the MDC-M party can't deliver the other MPs, the options for SADC have dwindled to one. The only option left (besides giving up and simply walking away, leaving Zimbabwe to collapse) is to do what the Zimbabweans said on March 29 i.e. MDC-T is the favoured party and Tsvangirai the favoured leader.Whether Mbeki and SADC and Mugabe are happy about it or not, is irrelevant. The people spoke and their voice must be respected.Is this the end for Mugabe? I believe it is....because like Bill Clinton and the Democratic Party said in 1991/92 as they campaigned against a highly popular President George Bush Snr..."it is the economy, stupid!"
Mugabe's government is bankrupt, the economy has basically collapsed with all the implications for the region (e.g. refugees and illegal immigrants in South Africa, Botswana etc.), the only solution will be based on Western funds ploughed into Zimbabwe. But these funds are linked to the March 29 results and without Morgan Tsvangirai signing on any deal for power sharing, those funds won't be forthcoming. Thabo Mbeki knows it and everybody knows that.Thabo Mbeki is slowly (very slowly) realising that he might leave the South African Presidency with a tattered image and his loss of credibility on Zimbabwe might mean that he will not be a respected statesman after he leaves office. It is a fact that Mbeki will still want to be active in world affairs after 2009 (when he leaves office). If his highly criticised mediation in Zimbabwe lead to nothing, he will be blamed for it and considered a failure in dealing with the problem.
At some point soon, Mbeki will have to sacrifice Mugabe to rescue his image and legacy. Mugabe is so weak now and has very few friends left and an increasing number of African leaders are now publicly criticising him, one would think that it would be relatively easy for Thabo Mbeki to finally tell him that his time is up and he must go and make way for a new crop of leaders.How the Zimbabwe crisis will someday be resolved is still a matter of speculation, but the images beamed by ZTV on Tuesday afternoon, were that of a Robert Mugabe who looked tired and was quickly losing grip of the reigns of power. What is now important is to manage his departure.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Issues of Gender and Sexual Orientation Split Christian Churches
One of the issues that threatens to split a number of the Christian churches today, it is the question of whether females can be ordained to function as priests or bishops or pastors or church elders. There are differences in the administrative or leadership structures of the different christian churches and comparisons can be difficult to draw, but a fundamental principle any local christian congregation (church) of any denomination has is local leaders whose function is to teach, lead and guide the congregation based on the policies, principles and beliefs agreed upon by the national or regional or even world-wide church structures. One of the paramount objectives of each christian church is to maintain doctrinal unity, without which the church would disintegrate into splinter groups that might in the end have very little in common.
Another issue that is causing huge strains and stresses on a number of christian churches is the question of homosexuality and whether it is compatible with Biblical teachings. Can sincere Christians live in homosexual (or lesbian) relationships and still be accepted as members of the communion? Even difficult a challenge is the question of gay and lesbian clergy (priests, pastors, bishops) as evidenced by the challenge faced in the Anglican Communion (in the USA, Episcopal Church) through the ordination of Gene Robinson, an openly gay man, as bishop of New Hampshire (USA) in 2003.
The challenges to church orthodoxy is also experienced in the Roman Catholic Church, in spite of the RCC having quite a rigid leadership style (with the Pope as the universal leader considered infallible) as well as definitive doctrine to aid decisive solutions. Indicative of the conflict of views within the Catholic Church itself is the case of Eugene Drewerman, a nationally known Catholic priest and stem critic of some of the Catholic Church's fundamental policies. Many Roman Catholics considered him to be a heretic, but others considered him to be a highly respected theologian who simply wishes to reform the Catholic Church. During 1992, the archbishop of the area, a churchman by the name of Degenhart, decided to take drastic action against Drewerman, forbidding him to teach, preach, or to exercise his duties as a priest. In this situation, Eugene Drewerman became an opponent not only of Archbishop Degenhart and most of the German bishops, but also of the Pope himself. In any case, the archbishop and other bishops erred if they believed that they could end the theological conflict administratively by means of authoritarian threats and prohibitions which were designed to silence Drewerman.
Besides Drewermann, the Catholic Church has also had theological confrontations with and Hans Kung, Brazilian theologian Leonardo Boff, and several prominent American Catholic thinkers.
The challenges to church orthodoxy is also experienced in the Roman Catholic Church, in spite of the RCC having quite a rigid leadership style (with the Pope as the universal leader considered infallible) as well as definitive doctrine to aid decisive solutions. Indicative of the conflict of views within the Catholic Church itself is the case of Eugene Drewerman, a nationally known Catholic priest and stem critic of some of the Catholic Church's fundamental policies. Many Roman Catholics considered him to be a heretic, but others considered him to be a highly respected theologian who simply wishes to reform the Catholic Church. During 1992, the archbishop of the area, a churchman by the name of Degenhart, decided to take drastic action against Drewerman, forbidding him to teach, preach, or to exercise his duties as a priest. In this situation, Eugene Drewerman became an opponent not only of Archbishop Degenhart and most of the German bishops, but also of the Pope himself. In any case, the archbishop and other bishops erred if they believed that they could end the theological conflict administratively by means of authoritarian threats and prohibitions which were designed to silence Drewerman.
Besides Drewermann, the Catholic Church has also had theological confrontations with and Hans Kung, Brazilian theologian Leonardo Boff, and several prominent American Catholic thinkers.
But the most recent tensions have been evident in the Anglican Communion (called Church of England in the UK or the Episcopal Church in the USA). The Times Magazine correctly expressed the general sentiment in its edition of June 07, 2007, by entitling an article "Anglicanism in Crisis."
1. The Geene Robinson Saga
A schock-wave went around not only to the 80 million or so Anglicans (or Episcopalians) in the world, but throughout the Christian community, when the Episcopal Church (the Anglican body in the USA) made Geene Robinson, a gay man, bishop of New Hampshire. The time after that has been characterised by a series of angry meetings, threats to break away, demands and deadlines from Anglicans worldwide. The man supposed to have been "crisis managing" this whole saga is the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams. He is the professional leader of the Church of England and titular head of its global offshoot, the Anglican Communion. The debate about homosexuality seem to have been silenced in the Anglican Communion at the 1998 Lambeth Conference (a conference held once every 10 years) where the conclusion reached was that "homosexual practice is incompatible with Scripture." Anglicanism, like many organisations is global and unites varied ethinicities, economic levels and social attitudes in an overarching understanding of faith. But unlike the Roman Catholic church, doctrinal unity is achieved through continual conversation based on mutual respect rather than through authoritarianism. The sharp debate on homosexuality threatens the unity of the faith and is a challenge to a world still characterised by a North - rich with an ethos of individual rights and the poorer South. And as Williams said "the Communion feels very vulnerable, very vulnerable and very fragile." This debate has got people like Nigerian Archbishop Peter Akinola "infuriated". Akinola has said "God regards homosexuality as the equivalent of humans having sex with various animals." He has also commented that "we don't have to go through Cantebury to get to Jesus." These are signs of a willingness to breakaway from the Communion in order to preserve the purity of the gospel. Akinola even set up his own Anglican body in the USA - the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA) flouting rules about "stealing other bishops' sheep." With the Lambeth Conference set for July 2008, there was bound to be a "show-down" and the unity of the Communion was under threat. Akinola had threatened to pull his country's 90+ bishops out of Lambeth , and therefore Williams disinvited Geene Robinson and Martyn Minns (a bishop of Akinola's US Church) from the Lambeth 2008. He was trying to avoid the Conference degenerating into a "Geene Robinson issue."
2. GAFCON - Global Anglican Future Conference
But before Lambeth 2008, a Conference (GAFCON) was held in Jerusalem from 22 to 29 June 2008. GAFCON (http://www.gafcon.org/) was organised by Anglican/Episcopal bishops and leaders who were very worried about the Communion moving away from the bible truth in order to accomodate world pressures on homosexuality for example. The GAFCON organisers see themselves as the last bastion of the truth in the Anglican Communion and if it meant breaking away from the main church, they are willing to risk that.The conference took place on June 22-29, 2008, in Jerusalem and attended by 1148 lay and clergy delegates, including 291 Anglican Bishops; but the identities of those attending have not been published and may have included bishops and clergy not recognised by the Anglican Communion. The leading participants of GAFCON included Archbishops Peter Akinola of Nigeria , Benjamin Nzimbi of Kenya, Donald Mtetemela of Tanzania, Peter Jensen of Sydney, Australia and Presiding Bishop Greg Venables of the Southern Cone, Bishops Don Harvey of Canada, Bob Duncan of USA and Martyn Minns of USA, Canon Vinay Samuel of India and Canon Chris Sugden of England. These leaders claim to represent 30 million of the 55 million "active" Anglicans in the worldwide communion. However, this figure assumes the support of all Anglicans in the provinces from which the individual participants have come (although in the Province of Kenya, for example, there has been outspoken criticism of the Church leadership ) and adopts a low estimate of the numbers of Anglicans in the rest of the world. The official figure for Anglicans worldwide is 80 million.
Sessions were held on the topics of secularism, the Anglican Communion, HIV/AIDS and poverty. Delegates also visited sacred sites in and around Jerusalem. At the beginning of the conference a booklet was released by Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria entitled The Way, the Truth and the Life: Theological Resources for a Pilgrimage to a Global Anglican Future.
The Jerusalem Declaration of GAFCON made it clear that they oppose any attempt to digress from biblical truth (as they see it) as expressed in the slow but sure tendency to accept homosexuality within the Anglican Communion e.g. the ordination of Robinson and the conducting of gay marriages within the Anglican Church. GAFCON is on collision course with the rest of the Anglican/Episcopal Church and it will be seen if the Anglican Communion will survive the collision.
3. Anglicans in Britain vote to allow female Bishops
On July 7, 2008, the Anglican Church in Britain voted to approve the appointment of female bishops. This step appeared to risk a schism in the church that is already severely strained over the issue of gay bishops. The debate went late into the night in York, but in the end the general synod of the Church of England - an assembly that holds authority on matters of church doctrine in Britain voted by a clear majority within each of the synod's three houses - bishops, clergy and laity - to approve the consecration of female bishops in the face of bitter opposition from traditionalists.
The vote comes 16 years after the synod voted (also in a fractious debate) to approve the ordination of women as ministers within the British church.
The move to approve female bishops in Britain follows that taken by Anglicans in the USA, Australia and Canada where women bishops have been appointed for some years.
Opponents of the female bishops argue that Jesus, in choosing only 12 male disciples, intended that men alone should have the responsibility of ministering to his followers.
Before the synod in York, traditionalists had claimed to have the backing of over 1 300 clergy in Britain who were prepared to leave the church rather than accept female bishops.
Church officials have however said, the first female bishops would not be appointed before 2014 because the church needs to draw up a "code of practice" to govern the change.
4. Lambeth Conference 2008
From 16 July to 3 August 2008, the once-a-decade Lambeth Conference took place amid expectations that it would be characterised by fireworks, controversy, dissent and even a split of the Anglican Communion, due to the issues of gay clergy and female bishops.
But the 670 bishops of the Anglican Communion had a 19 day conference characterised by prayer and theological debate, but very little acrimony or schisms.
The church survived the Conference without any harm and the Archbishop of Cantebury Rowan Williams must have had a great sigh of relief.
5. Seventh Day Adventists and Female Pastors/Elders
The Seventh-day Adventist church (http://www.adventist.org/) is not as large as the Anglican Church. It has an official worldwide membership of less than 15 million, but it is challenged by the same issues that face the rest of Christianity. These issues include the question of ordaining females as Pastors or Elders into ministry as well as how to deal with homosexual behaviour in society and even within the church.
But unlike the Anglican Communion, where the different regions of the world church are to a degree autonomous to make decisions (e.g. the Episcopal Church ordained a gay bishop while the Anglican Communion in Nigeria might not allow it) the SDA church considers itself one body and a decision taken are binding for the entire world wide church. This has protected the church from factionalism on these issues, but it has also generated tensions within the body in areas where there is disagreements have arisen between Adventists in different regions of the world differ in their understanding of Scripture.
The Adventist Church is much more conservative compared to many Christian churches and its official position on homosexuality is that, this is an abomination and a sin and goes contrary to Scripture. There is no big debate within the Church (unlike in the Anglican Church) on this matter since there is general consensus.
However the issue of ordaining women as pastors has been a controversial issue within the church for decades now. It was in the 1970s when the Church voted to allow female elders and deacons to be ordained. Elders and deacons are appointed only to serve a specific local church and they are usually lay members. They are only church officers at their specific local church and can not function as elders or deacons at another local Adventist Church unless they are requested to.
In some parts of the world, there are still local churches who don't accept that females can be ordained or serve as elders and in order to resolve this, the local church simply doesn't appoint or vote females into the office of elder.
However the issue of ordaining females as pastors has generated much more controversy over the years and has still not been resolved for the world wide church. It came to a head at the 1995 General Conference Session in Utrecht (Netherlands). This is a once-every-5 years meeting of delegates from all over the world to discuss the business of the world church. At the 1995 Session the North American Adventist church made a proposal that would allow the various regions of the church (13 world divisions) to make independent decisions on ordaining female pastors. These ordained pastors would however only serve in the region they are ordained. This proposal needed to be accepted by the world delegates before it could be implemented. The world delegates however rejected the proposal, arguing that since there is no unity within the church on this issue, allowing each division to "go alone" on this issue would lead to schisms within the church.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Why 43% Still Voted For Robert Mugabe on March 29, 2008
A question that many people outside Zimbabwe have been posing for sometime now is, if Robert Mugabe is as bad as the international media portrays him to be and if he is indeed the source of the miseries of Zimbabweans, why did at least 43% of the voters (according to the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission results) vote for him and why did his party ZANU-PF win about 48% of the parliamentary seats and 50% of the senate seats (the two MDCs got 52% in parliament and 50% in senate)? I haven't heard of any comprehensive explanation i.e. an explanation which has done justice to this question. First of all it is important to mention that, the Zimbabwe situation is a very complex one and not easy to comprehend for people who are outside of that country and who haven't followed the rule of Robert Mugabe over the last 28 years. It is also very difficult to those who do not understand how ZANU-PF has functioned as a ruling party since 1980. This complexity is the reason for this dichotomy between the general belief that Zimbabwe's economic and political deterioration is largely due to Robert Mugabe and his party, but at the same time the fact that almost 50% of the voting public voted for him in the March 2008 elections (inspite of the "suffering" they experience largely because of him). In many languages there is a saying which goes something like "abused people tend to gravitate towards and be attracted to the source of their pain." This is similar to what psychologists term "the battered woman syndrome" where an abused woman get more and more "attracted" to the abuser and doesn't seem to be able to run away from the source of the abuse.
I am not sure if there is anything called "battered man syndrome."
The following might be viewed by some as a simplistic view about the 50% Zimbabweans who voted for Mugabe, but it is an attempt to unpack the issue. The following five reasons are some of the reasons that I believe might explain this strange phenomenon.
1. The History of Liberation Struggle of the 1970s
Mugabe led a very brutal war against the Smith government in the 1970s. This was a guerrilla war which also involved the population (especially in the rural areas). The ZANLA (ZANU's military wing) would penetrate into Zimbabwe from their bases in Mozambique and engage in battles with the Rhodesian army. The ZANLA forces depended on the people in the rural areas for support, information about the movements of the Rhodesian soldiers in the area, food and clothing. The people were part and parcel of the war. The ZANLA forces would also hold rallies and political meetings with villagers at night to "politically educate" them, and also to ensure their support. Who ever did not support the war or was accused of having informed the Rhodesian soldiers about the movements of the ZANLA forces, was considered a "sell-out" and would be killed in full view of the others. And in some cases the entire immediate family of the "sell out" would be killed (including children) in public. This was meant to send a message to the people that "if you do not support us you die." The liberation war was often driven on fear, "just and necessary" as some people might argue it was (in order to liberate people from the oppressive white regime).
Of course in such a war, there are also innocent casualties, people who are falsely accused and killed.
Any Zimbabwean who is about 42 years old and older still has vivid memories of this war. More than 28 years after the end of the war, some people might expect these people to have lost the memory and fear of the war, but the stories of people who experienced World War 2 in Europe, who are still traumatized by it almost 60 years later proves that some memories last forever. One notices that this older generation of Zimbabwean voters has been the power base of ZANU-PF over the years. Without generalising too much, many of these would rather vote ZANU-PF if that would stop the return of some form of violence. The violence perpetrated by the so called "War Veterans" in the early 2000s and now just before the June 27 re-run election, proved that ZANU-PF is still a militant party which easily resorts to violence to achieve its goals and therefore unable or unwilling to allow the democratic will of the people prevail, if that will threatens its power. The War Veterans of the 2000s called their violent actions the "Chimurenga" i.e. the liberation war.
All through his 28year rule, Robert Mugabe has constantly referred to the war of the 70s and at every opportunity reminded people that his party is going to war to fight the "puppets of the West" (that's what he calls any opposition party). The militant nature of the propaganda churned by the State media (100% controlled by the government/ZANU-PF) has always reminded people that for ZANU-PF "the bullet is more powerful than the X on the ballot paper."
2. The ZANU-PF Grip on the Rural Population
The apposition parties have always been strong in the urban areas where the effects of the economic collapse are immediately felt as jobs are lost, food and rental prices go up etc. But ZANU-PF, because of their experience in the war of the 70s where they heavily relied on the rural population, realised that they need to close out the rural areas from the opposition. The majority of the Zimbabwe population (maybe 60%) is in the rural areas. Chiefs and Heads of Villages are the authority figures in the villages. They allocate land to people and they are a force to reckon with. Right from the start, Mugabe made sure the Chiefs were on his side. This is achieved either through bribery or intimidation. He gave them certain powers and benefits but on condition that they towed the government/ZANU-PF line. That way, the chiefs "campaigned" for Robert Mugabe. Villagers have always been made to understand that there was no room for opposition people in the areas. In the 2000, Mugabe gave Chiefs cars, tractors, salaries etc. At meetings where these benefits were announced, government ministers or Mugabe himself would publicly announce that if a Chief was found to be an opposition supporter he would be stripped of his Chieftainship and benefits taken away. Chiefs were also told to ensure that their people voted "correctly" i.e. vote for ZANU-PF. There have been elections where villagers were told to go to polling stations in groups to vote. There have been cases where ZANU-PF had told villagers that, government would know whether the majority in the village voted ZANU-PF or another party. This was of course easy to know because in most cases there was one or two polling stations in each village and people voted at specific polling stations where they were registered on the voters roll. It would be easy to know that the majority in the village voted ZANU-PF or another party (without knowing who voted for who specifically). ZANU-PF threatened to stop any aid and development in villages which voted for any other party. In the urban areas, it was a different story because people were more "independent" from such threats and did not depend on "aid" from government to the same extent as the rural areas. On top of that, there are no "Chiefs" in the towns and cities to enforce ZANU-PF's wishes.
The Mugabe government has always had a tight grip on the media, both print and electronic media. The daily newspapers are state owned and state run. The government has absolute control on what gets published and how it is published.
Independent papers have struggled in Zimbabwe and many have closed down. In the 1990s, as the opposition became stronger a daily paper called "The Daily News" came up. It became so popular that it outsold the government papers e.g. The Herald and The Chronicle. The then Information Minister (Jonathan Moyo) crafted a media law which in the end led to the collapse of this paper. The printing press of The Daily News was bombed one night (a few days after Moyo had threatened it). Although the security people at the printing house reported to the police, the car which came with the "bombers" (and even its registration plates) to the police, a case was never opened (even today, 6 years later). The electronic media (TV and Radio) are also 100% state controlled. The propaganda from the media is nauseating. The opposition has little or no access at all. Opposition election adverts are rejected and not run and there is nothing anybody can do about it.
Radio, which has a wide coverage and the only source of information for over 90% of the population (especially rural people) is a ZANU-PF tool to indoctrinate, threaten and brain wash people. Unless people have an alternative source of information, all they hear and see and read is ZANU-PF propaganda.
Of late ZANU-PF has been "preaching" that the MDC opposition is a British puppet and that the economic miseries of Zimbabweans are caused by sanctions imposed upon Zimbabwe by the West at the request of MDC. The reason, people are told, is because the government took land from the whites to give to the blacks.
Blacks in Zimbabwe generally are farmers and the land issue was one of the reasons for the war of liberation. When ZANU-PF presents the story this way, many people who don't know otherwise (especially rural people who live from the land) believe it. ZANU-PF also tells people that if they vote MDC into power, MDC will allow the whites back and re-posses the land.
4. The Land Invasions in the 2000s
The land invasions of the 2000 reminded people that ZANU-PF is still militant at its core and will resort to violence to achieve its goals. This has reminded the older and rural people that even after 28 years of independence, ZANU-PF can go to "war". The land invasions were also used by ZANU-PF to bribe people. The issue of land was a legitimate one and many opposition parties in the past have always criticised the government of being too slow with land retribution. Robert Mugabe only did the invasions in the 2000 when he realised that the opposition was becoming popular and he needed something extra-ordinary to "regain" his grip on power. This is proven by the fact that many farms taken over in the invasions are lying idle or are unproductive (5 years later). If the purpose of the invasion was to start an agrarian reform which was equitable, then those farms would be productive today. The land issue was used to bribe people, create a hype around reversing the uneven land distribution as well as to punish the white farmers who were beginning to support MDC.
I am not sure if there is anything called "battered man syndrome."
The following might be viewed by some as a simplistic view about the 50% Zimbabweans who voted for Mugabe, but it is an attempt to unpack the issue. The following five reasons are some of the reasons that I believe might explain this strange phenomenon.
1. The History of Liberation Struggle of the 1970s
Mugabe led a very brutal war against the Smith government in the 1970s. This was a guerrilla war which also involved the population (especially in the rural areas). The ZANLA (ZANU's military wing) would penetrate into Zimbabwe from their bases in Mozambique and engage in battles with the Rhodesian army. The ZANLA forces depended on the people in the rural areas for support, information about the movements of the Rhodesian soldiers in the area, food and clothing. The people were part and parcel of the war. The ZANLA forces would also hold rallies and political meetings with villagers at night to "politically educate" them, and also to ensure their support. Who ever did not support the war or was accused of having informed the Rhodesian soldiers about the movements of the ZANLA forces, was considered a "sell-out" and would be killed in full view of the others. And in some cases the entire immediate family of the "sell out" would be killed (including children) in public. This was meant to send a message to the people that "if you do not support us you die." The liberation war was often driven on fear, "just and necessary" as some people might argue it was (in order to liberate people from the oppressive white regime).
Of course in such a war, there are also innocent casualties, people who are falsely accused and killed.
Any Zimbabwean who is about 42 years old and older still has vivid memories of this war. More than 28 years after the end of the war, some people might expect these people to have lost the memory and fear of the war, but the stories of people who experienced World War 2 in Europe, who are still traumatized by it almost 60 years later proves that some memories last forever. One notices that this older generation of Zimbabwean voters has been the power base of ZANU-PF over the years. Without generalising too much, many of these would rather vote ZANU-PF if that would stop the return of some form of violence. The violence perpetrated by the so called "War Veterans" in the early 2000s and now just before the June 27 re-run election, proved that ZANU-PF is still a militant party which easily resorts to violence to achieve its goals and therefore unable or unwilling to allow the democratic will of the people prevail, if that will threatens its power. The War Veterans of the 2000s called their violent actions the "Chimurenga" i.e. the liberation war.
All through his 28year rule, Robert Mugabe has constantly referred to the war of the 70s and at every opportunity reminded people that his party is going to war to fight the "puppets of the West" (that's what he calls any opposition party). The militant nature of the propaganda churned by the State media (100% controlled by the government/ZANU-PF) has always reminded people that for ZANU-PF "the bullet is more powerful than the X on the ballot paper."
2. The ZANU-PF Grip on the Rural Population
The apposition parties have always been strong in the urban areas where the effects of the economic collapse are immediately felt as jobs are lost, food and rental prices go up etc. But ZANU-PF, because of their experience in the war of the 70s where they heavily relied on the rural population, realised that they need to close out the rural areas from the opposition. The majority of the Zimbabwe population (maybe 60%) is in the rural areas. Chiefs and Heads of Villages are the authority figures in the villages. They allocate land to people and they are a force to reckon with. Right from the start, Mugabe made sure the Chiefs were on his side. This is achieved either through bribery or intimidation. He gave them certain powers and benefits but on condition that they towed the government/ZANU-PF line. That way, the chiefs "campaigned" for Robert Mugabe. Villagers have always been made to understand that there was no room for opposition people in the areas. In the 2000, Mugabe gave Chiefs cars, tractors, salaries etc. At meetings where these benefits were announced, government ministers or Mugabe himself would publicly announce that if a Chief was found to be an opposition supporter he would be stripped of his Chieftainship and benefits taken away. Chiefs were also told to ensure that their people voted "correctly" i.e. vote for ZANU-PF. There have been elections where villagers were told to go to polling stations in groups to vote. There have been cases where ZANU-PF had told villagers that, government would know whether the majority in the village voted ZANU-PF or another party. This was of course easy to know because in most cases there was one or two polling stations in each village and people voted at specific polling stations where they were registered on the voters roll. It would be easy to know that the majority in the village voted ZANU-PF or another party (without knowing who voted for who specifically). ZANU-PF threatened to stop any aid and development in villages which voted for any other party. In the urban areas, it was a different story because people were more "independent" from such threats and did not depend on "aid" from government to the same extent as the rural areas. On top of that, there are no "Chiefs" in the towns and cities to enforce ZANU-PF's wishes.
But one should also not ignore the fact that Robert Mugabe did a lot of good things to uplift the rural areas which had been neglected by the previous white government. He put roads, clinics, schools and the people were very grateful. Such basic things normally mean the world to rural people, who then often remain indebted to the government forever. ZANU-PF then used this to campaign to the rural people, as if it was ZANU-PF as a party which did all that. These developments were mostly paid for through aid money from the western world, but the people never got that part of the story. They were told that ZANU-PF was building them roads and clinics.
3. Mugabe's Stronghold on the MediaThe Mugabe government has always had a tight grip on the media, both print and electronic media. The daily newspapers are state owned and state run. The government has absolute control on what gets published and how it is published.
Independent papers have struggled in Zimbabwe and many have closed down. In the 1990s, as the opposition became stronger a daily paper called "The Daily News" came up. It became so popular that it outsold the government papers e.g. The Herald and The Chronicle. The then Information Minister (Jonathan Moyo) crafted a media law which in the end led to the collapse of this paper. The printing press of The Daily News was bombed one night (a few days after Moyo had threatened it). Although the security people at the printing house reported to the police, the car which came with the "bombers" (and even its registration plates) to the police, a case was never opened (even today, 6 years later). The electronic media (TV and Radio) are also 100% state controlled. The propaganda from the media is nauseating. The opposition has little or no access at all. Opposition election adverts are rejected and not run and there is nothing anybody can do about it.
Radio, which has a wide coverage and the only source of information for over 90% of the population (especially rural people) is a ZANU-PF tool to indoctrinate, threaten and brain wash people. Unless people have an alternative source of information, all they hear and see and read is ZANU-PF propaganda.
Of late ZANU-PF has been "preaching" that the MDC opposition is a British puppet and that the economic miseries of Zimbabweans are caused by sanctions imposed upon Zimbabwe by the West at the request of MDC. The reason, people are told, is because the government took land from the whites to give to the blacks.
Blacks in Zimbabwe generally are farmers and the land issue was one of the reasons for the war of liberation. When ZANU-PF presents the story this way, many people who don't know otherwise (especially rural people who live from the land) believe it. ZANU-PF also tells people that if they vote MDC into power, MDC will allow the whites back and re-posses the land.
4. The Land Invasions in the 2000s
The land invasions of the 2000 reminded people that ZANU-PF is still militant at its core and will resort to violence to achieve its goals. This has reminded the older and rural people that even after 28 years of independence, ZANU-PF can go to "war". The land invasions were also used by ZANU-PF to bribe people. The issue of land was a legitimate one and many opposition parties in the past have always criticised the government of being too slow with land retribution. Robert Mugabe only did the invasions in the 2000 when he realised that the opposition was becoming popular and he needed something extra-ordinary to "regain" his grip on power. This is proven by the fact that many farms taken over in the invasions are lying idle or are unproductive (5 years later). If the purpose of the invasion was to start an agrarian reform which was equitable, then those farms would be productive today. The land issue was used to bribe people, create a hype around reversing the uneven land distribution as well as to punish the white farmers who were beginning to support MDC.
5. ZANU-PF's Huge Capacity to Bribe or Brutalise
ZANU-PF uses two methods to make sure people tow the line. They either bribe you (hence very little is done to solve the corruption. Corruption is part of the bribe) or they threaten you. In times of poor harvests, food aid has often been channelled through government agencies. People have often been threatened that if they don't support ZANU-PF, they won't get food. ZANU-PF membership cards have been asked for as proof before people get food aid. Those who are too stubborn to succumb to bribery have had their lives threatened and some have been killed or have their houses burnt down. Because the media is under government control and outside media is not allowed into Zimbabwe (without government permission but only few if at all ever get that permission), many of these stories are never reported to the outside world.
The five reasons above are only some of the issues that might help outsiders understand how the ZANU-PF machinery works and why they have managed to stay in power for so long in spite of their record of mismanagement and corruption. These are not exhaustive and might not explain the entire picture but they should go a long way in doing that.
Unless one actually lives in Zimbabwe and talks to people and hears their stories, one might wonder why things are the way they are and why one still finds a huge number (over 40%) of people voting for Robert Mugabe. Only an in-depth analysis will unpack all the complex reasons.
Finally, one must not forget to mention that there are also people in Zimbabwe who genuinely support ZANU-PF and Robert Mugabe and will die and kill for him. Why they support him, is for them to answer but the more difficult question would be "how many they really are?" My answer is, somwhere between 20 and 25%.
Friday, July 18, 2008
The Paradox of Mandela and Mugabe
As the world celebrates Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela's 90th birthday on July 18, 2008, it is impossible to remove one's eyes from another old man who resides in the Zimbabwe State House and still clings to power almost 10 years after Mandela voluntarily and graciously left the South African "State House." The histories of South Africa and Zimbabwe are intricately interwoven. The British colonialists entered and occupied the two countries at about the same time and it was in essence the same people (e.g. Cecil John Rhodes, Leander Starr Jameson etc.) who "explored" the two countries. There was even a time (during the time of colonisation) where there were suggestions to form one country out of South Africa and the then Rhodesia. Some people today still think it would have been a good idea. There are deep and long cultural ties between Zimbabwe and South Africa. The Ndebeles in Zimbabwe are in essence Zulus who left South Africa as they fled from Chaka (the Great Zulu King and Warrior). The Vendas in the Limpopo are culturally related to the Karangas/Shonas across the river.
Because of these many links between the two countries one can not miss the paradox and irony of having two old men (90yr old Mandela and 84yr old Mugabe) who have had such a great influence on their respected nations, but will leave very opposite legacies when they die one day.
It is almost sure that the day Mandela dies, the world will mourn him and everybody will feel that a great, important man has left the stage. There will be a deep sense of loss and grief and there are even people who speculate that the "Mandela Factor" is propping the South African economy and image, and the day he dies, there will be a deep in the economy and the world's perception about South Africa.
But it is also almost certain that the day Mugabe dies, many people in the world will talk of a man who inherited a beautiful and rich country; a country with great potential to succeed but "ran the country to ruins." Whether this assessment about Mugabe is right or wrong, is another debate, but that is indeed the prevailing perception and it is almost impossible to change that perception.
Both Mugabe and Mandela were driven into the liberation struggle by the injustices of the white colonial masters on their fellow country men.
Both managed to get a decent education at a time when education was a rare privilege for blacks. Mandela trained as a lawyer and Mugabe a teacher (and went on to get at least six academic degrees).
Both spent sometime studying at Forth Hare University (Eastern Cape, South Africa).
Both spent time in prison and faced personal persecution for the white regimes for their political activities.
Both developed a vision of what their countries should look like when they finally become free from oppression.
Both started well and achieved very high recognition from the world, as statesmen, African leaders and as leaders who worked for the reconciliation between the former white masters and the black oppressed masses.
But at some point in their lives, their courses diverged tremendously.
The differences between Mugabe and Mandela couldn't be any greater and clearer.
While the world celebrates Madela's 90th birthay, Mugabe is vilified as a tyrant, dictator, destroyer-of-a-nation and a power hungry megalomaniac. There are many theories that have been developed to try and explain why some leaders, who all start with good and noble intentions, end up like the villified Mugabe and others end up like the glorified Mandela.
I don't claim to be an expert in human psychology to be able to conduct an analysis of what makes some people turn out to be like Mandela and others like Mugabe, but I am convinced it has to do with the choices people make.
Although circumstances people find themselves in can indeed influence people's lives, but each person's legacy is defined through one's choices inspite of the circumstances.
Although Mandela spent many years in prison (more than Mugabe) and missed many years with his family (which even had an effect of leading to the break up of his marriage with Winnie Mandela, he was not there when his kids were growing up), he chose to forgive and reconcile with the former white oppressors. He based his task on reconciling people who were once enemies. He knew that the alternative (retribution) would destroy the nation and he had to withstand lots of pressure from his fellow black compatriots who indeed wanted "justice" (revenge).
Although Mandela knew that transforming South Africa into a just society would not be completed in his life time, he preached patience and was willing to pass on the baton of leadership to a new generation of leaders.
Although Mandela knew that not everybody loved/liked him and that there were political opponents who were always working to hinder his progress, he still realised that it was important to work with all political actors.
Although Mandela knew that his position of power (as President) gave him access to wealth and personal riches, he chose not to be tempted to be corrupt and be rich while millions of black South Africans were poor.
Although Mandela knew that he had reason to be bitter, he chose not to harbor bitterness and resentment. No wonder some people say that he could only live to be 90 because he constantly feeds on love and grace towards others.
As Bill Clinton (ex US President) once said, "when Mandela enters the room, we all stand up and cheer and clap, because on our best days, we all want to be a Mandela."
On the other hand Mugabe knew that transforming Zimbabwe into a just society was full of challenges and he chose to use force and violence (ovet and covet) to drive his angenda.
Mugabe knew that there will be political opponents to his agenda, and he chose to see them as enemies who needed to be eliminated.
Mugabe knew that a position of power gave him access to wealth, and he was tempted to be corrupt and use bribe as a means of protecting his position, even millions of Zimbabweans are poor.
And I am sure that when Mugabe enters the room, the vast majority of people in the world will NOT stand up and cheer and clap, because the vast majority does not want to end up like Mugabe.
On this note, happy birthday Nelson Rolinhlanhla Mandela on your 90th.
May the Lord Almighty continue to be gracious to you.
May the promise of God to Abraham (another Father of the Nation) indeed come true to you too "You however will go to your fathers in peace and be buried at a good old age." Genesis 15:15
God bless you Madiba!
Because of these many links between the two countries one can not miss the paradox and irony of having two old men (90yr old Mandela and 84yr old Mugabe) who have had such a great influence on their respected nations, but will leave very opposite legacies when they die one day.
It is almost sure that the day Mandela dies, the world will mourn him and everybody will feel that a great, important man has left the stage. There will be a deep sense of loss and grief and there are even people who speculate that the "Mandela Factor" is propping the South African economy and image, and the day he dies, there will be a deep in the economy and the world's perception about South Africa.
But it is also almost certain that the day Mugabe dies, many people in the world will talk of a man who inherited a beautiful and rich country; a country with great potential to succeed but "ran the country to ruins." Whether this assessment about Mugabe is right or wrong, is another debate, but that is indeed the prevailing perception and it is almost impossible to change that perception.
Both Mugabe and Mandela were driven into the liberation struggle by the injustices of the white colonial masters on their fellow country men.
Both managed to get a decent education at a time when education was a rare privilege for blacks. Mandela trained as a lawyer and Mugabe a teacher (and went on to get at least six academic degrees).
Both spent sometime studying at Forth Hare University (Eastern Cape, South Africa).
Both spent time in prison and faced personal persecution for the white regimes for their political activities.
Both developed a vision of what their countries should look like when they finally become free from oppression.
Both started well and achieved very high recognition from the world, as statesmen, African leaders and as leaders who worked for the reconciliation between the former white masters and the black oppressed masses.
But at some point in their lives, their courses diverged tremendously.
The differences between Mugabe and Mandela couldn't be any greater and clearer.
While the world celebrates Madela's 90th birthay, Mugabe is vilified as a tyrant, dictator, destroyer-of-a-nation and a power hungry megalomaniac. There are many theories that have been developed to try and explain why some leaders, who all start with good and noble intentions, end up like the villified Mugabe and others end up like the glorified Mandela.
I don't claim to be an expert in human psychology to be able to conduct an analysis of what makes some people turn out to be like Mandela and others like Mugabe, but I am convinced it has to do with the choices people make.
Although circumstances people find themselves in can indeed influence people's lives, but each person's legacy is defined through one's choices inspite of the circumstances.
Although Mandela spent many years in prison (more than Mugabe) and missed many years with his family (which even had an effect of leading to the break up of his marriage with Winnie Mandela, he was not there when his kids were growing up), he chose to forgive and reconcile with the former white oppressors. He based his task on reconciling people who were once enemies. He knew that the alternative (retribution) would destroy the nation and he had to withstand lots of pressure from his fellow black compatriots who indeed wanted "justice" (revenge).
Although Mandela knew that transforming South Africa into a just society would not be completed in his life time, he preached patience and was willing to pass on the baton of leadership to a new generation of leaders.
Although Mandela knew that not everybody loved/liked him and that there were political opponents who were always working to hinder his progress, he still realised that it was important to work with all political actors.
Although Mandela knew that his position of power (as President) gave him access to wealth and personal riches, he chose not to be tempted to be corrupt and be rich while millions of black South Africans were poor.
Although Mandela knew that he had reason to be bitter, he chose not to harbor bitterness and resentment. No wonder some people say that he could only live to be 90 because he constantly feeds on love and grace towards others.
As Bill Clinton (ex US President) once said, "when Mandela enters the room, we all stand up and cheer and clap, because on our best days, we all want to be a Mandela."
On the other hand Mugabe knew that transforming Zimbabwe into a just society was full of challenges and he chose to use force and violence (ovet and covet) to drive his angenda.
Mugabe knew that there will be political opponents to his agenda, and he chose to see them as enemies who needed to be eliminated.
Mugabe knew that a position of power gave him access to wealth, and he was tempted to be corrupt and use bribe as a means of protecting his position, even millions of Zimbabweans are poor.
And I am sure that when Mugabe enters the room, the vast majority of people in the world will NOT stand up and cheer and clap, because the vast majority does not want to end up like Mugabe.
On this note, happy birthday Nelson Rolinhlanhla Mandela on your 90th.
May the Lord Almighty continue to be gracious to you.
May the promise of God to Abraham (another Father of the Nation) indeed come true to you too "You however will go to your fathers in peace and be buried at a good old age." Genesis 15:15
God bless you Madiba!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
