The events of the last few days in South Africa raise a number of major questions. The nation has witnessed "service delivery" protests as well as strikes (industrial action) by workers from various categories and trades. The service delivery protests are basically uprisings, demonstrations and marches by residents (usually in the relatively poor communities) demanding that the local (and national) government provide them with basic services e.g. housing, clean water, electricity etc. These protests normally include allegations of corruption against the local council leaders e.g. mayors, councillors, municipal managers etc.
These protests are not new in South Africa and even the violence that often accompanies them is not new. The recent protest must however be seen in the light of a new South African government that was elected on April 22, 2009. This is the Jacob Zuma government, which came into power after a bitter internal rivalry within the ANC, leading to the humiliation of Thabo Mbeki (who lost the battle for the ANC presidency) in Dec 2007 at the Polokwane Conference. Thabo Mbeki was subsequently booted out of the Union Building (office of the national president) by the ANC National Executive Council in September 2008.
The Zuma wing of the ANC (together with COSATU and SACP) was seen by the poor segment of the society as the saviour and Zuma was considered to be a man who cares about the poor, the needy, the general workers and marginalised in society. Therefore the expectations were and are still very high.
During the period of the ANC in-fighting (Mbeki-Zuma) an impression was created that Thabo Mbeki did not care for the poor (but only for the middle class and rich) and Zuma was "pro-poor". This impression (rightly or wrongly) is fuelling some of the huge expectations in society.
Traditionally a new government is given 100 days to settle down, but the Zuma government didn't even get these 100 days before the protests started.
However there is a worrying factor about the recent protest, and that is the violence, mayhem and hooliganism that accompany them. It is almost as if the South African society can not demonstrate without resorting to some sort of violence. Some people argue, it comes from the apartheid past where people learnt to be violent because the environment (apartheid regime) was violent. Almost like a child who grows up in a home where violence is common and then becomes a violent criminal later in life i.e. socialization.
Some of the service delivery protesters have burnt down public buildings such as council offices, clinics, schools etc. The municipal workers striking in the cities have damaged sign posts in the streets, turned street bins upside down (trashing the streets) and intimidated innocent by standers, blocked streets and threatened car drivers etc.
And this raises a question about whether people have a general understanding of who owns the property they are destroying. It is very common to hear people say..this clinic or school or road is owned by the government. Many people never go further and ask themselves "who is the government?" It is indeed true that this concept of "government" being something outside and apart from us, is often created by government leaders (at all levels) and government employees and political leaders behaving as if they own "government property." There is a perception is society that leaders have their hands on the state purse and deep their hands into it at will to get whatever they want for whatever they want, while the rest of us sit there and watch in envy.
A friend of mine asked her house helper (so-called "maid") in Cape Town a very interesting question i.e. "where does government get money to pay teachers and nurses?" The maid said that government has a bank somewhere where they can go to get money. When there is no more money there, they just make/print some more. The answer might appear funny to some people, but given that some governments in the world (recently Zimbabwe) printed money to pay for their expenses, this might be a realistic idea in someones mind. Given that the South African government does not just print money at will (I hope it doesn't), the answer she gave highlights a big challenge society has.
Of the 46 million citizens in South Africa about 5.3 million are registered income tax payers. Many of these are at the lower end of the tax scale. Of course the state also makes money from VAT, company tax, duty and other forms of taxation and investments. Then about 13 million people receive some government grant (financial support) in some form or another. Then there is another huge section which receives services (e.g. health, education etc.) either for free or for very little money because they have a low level of or no income at all. Al these factors mean that there is a relatively large section of the population that has a limited understanding on how the modern state works.
Of course there is a lot of corruption, wastage and inefficiencies in government, but fact of the matter is that government in general can only give what it has.
What then can people expect from government? Many things, but it would be of great help if in protesting, people realise that someone somewhere pays for the services they rightly and justifiably demand. It would also be helpful if the protests do not destroy public facilities and infrastructure which is paid for by everybody (including the protesters).
It doesn't make sense to burn a clinic down because the mayor is accused of corruption.
It doesn't make sense to trash the city which you yourself cleaned last week.
It doesn't make sense for politicians to use hooliganism to gain support as they ascend to power and think that people who elected them won't use the same tactics against them.
It doesn't make sense to use violent rhetoric to make a point and believe people will not believe that violence should be used to solve problems.
There is a huge amount of education that needs to take place to make people aware that there is no such thing a government school or clinic or park.
Government is the people who pay taxes for the running of the state.
Public institutions and infrastructure belongs to the people and therefore they should maintain and protect them.
I always wonder what people are thinking when then throw litter, cans, bottles, plastics, cigarettes on the ground, on the street, outside through a taxi or bus windows.
Who do they think will come clean the mess? Government of course.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Saturday, July 11, 2009
The Michael Jackson Legacy
It has now been a couple of days since the Michael Jackson memorial service at the Staples Center in LA and the world is still not in agreement on what his legacy would be. Some people believe history will record that MJ was a pervert, a child molester, a deranged lunatic and an African American who was so embarrassed about being black that he did everything money could buy to have skin surgery performed on him so that he could look white. They even argue that his three children (Michael Joseph Jr, Paris Michael Katherine and Prince Michael II) do not look like children between a black man and a white woman. They all have long hair and look so white that it is "obvious" that he is not the father. They believe he distastes the notion of the black race that he used white sperm donors to have white children born for him.
Of course the allegations that he molested young boys who spent nights at his ranch and his "eccentric" behaviours in public have led many to believe that Michael was indeed a deranged man who needed psychiatric help. Who would forget the pictures of MJ dangling a baby from the window of the Adlon Hotel room window (Berlin, Germany) in November 2002.
It was however very clear from the sentiments expressed by the many speakers at MJ's memorial service, that his friends want him to be remembered for other things besides the negatives. They highlighted his great humanitarian and charity activities. Of course they also highlighted the fact that he was probably the greatest musical entertainer that ever lived up to this day.
It is possible that the world might never agree on the final verdict, but one thing is very clear i.e. Michael Jackson and his music transcended many boundaries, broke down barriers and appealed to the world like no other musician had done before.
Over the 40 years of his musical life, MJ appealed to various cultures and managed to bring people of different backgrounds, political persuasions and geographical locations together.
In the middle of the cold war, young people from communist Russia, East Germany, Romania or Poland danced to Michael Jackson songs like their age mates in the USA, UK or Japan. Somehow this young black musician from the capitalist USA spoke the language young people growing up in societies that indoctrinated them to consider the west as evil, could understand.
MJ appealed to young people in the Moslem world. Although Islam considered and taught that the western culture was decadent and MJ was a personification of that immorality, Michael was still adored (sometimes secretly) by young people in the Islam world.
Michael Jackson appealed to young people in the middle of the African continent. Michael Jackson and Coca-Cola were the two USA products that penetrated into the most remote parts of Africa like nothing else could do.
All around the world, at high school parties (especially in the 1980s and 1990s) the music of MJ could be heard. Whether in China or Chad or Chile. Whether in Berlin or Bogota or Bamako.
Given the controversy around the cause of his death and the issues around his estate (there will be a protracted court case) it will be a while until the final chapter of his life is written down. It looks like MJ is a controversial in death as he was in life.
But I hope that when everything is said and done, there will be at least a line which says that Michael Jackson was a musician who managed to do what world leaders failed to do, namely appeal to people across cultures, boundaries and ideologies.
Of course the allegations that he molested young boys who spent nights at his ranch and his "eccentric" behaviours in public have led many to believe that Michael was indeed a deranged man who needed psychiatric help. Who would forget the pictures of MJ dangling a baby from the window of the Adlon Hotel room window (Berlin, Germany) in November 2002.
It was however very clear from the sentiments expressed by the many speakers at MJ's memorial service, that his friends want him to be remembered for other things besides the negatives. They highlighted his great humanitarian and charity activities. Of course they also highlighted the fact that he was probably the greatest musical entertainer that ever lived up to this day.
It is possible that the world might never agree on the final verdict, but one thing is very clear i.e. Michael Jackson and his music transcended many boundaries, broke down barriers and appealed to the world like no other musician had done before.
Over the 40 years of his musical life, MJ appealed to various cultures and managed to bring people of different backgrounds, political persuasions and geographical locations together.
In the middle of the cold war, young people from communist Russia, East Germany, Romania or Poland danced to Michael Jackson songs like their age mates in the USA, UK or Japan. Somehow this young black musician from the capitalist USA spoke the language young people growing up in societies that indoctrinated them to consider the west as evil, could understand.
MJ appealed to young people in the Moslem world. Although Islam considered and taught that the western culture was decadent and MJ was a personification of that immorality, Michael was still adored (sometimes secretly) by young people in the Islam world.
Michael Jackson appealed to young people in the middle of the African continent. Michael Jackson and Coca-Cola were the two USA products that penetrated into the most remote parts of Africa like nothing else could do.
All around the world, at high school parties (especially in the 1980s and 1990s) the music of MJ could be heard. Whether in China or Chad or Chile. Whether in Berlin or Bogota or Bamako.
Given the controversy around the cause of his death and the issues around his estate (there will be a protracted court case) it will be a while until the final chapter of his life is written down. It looks like MJ is a controversial in death as he was in life.
But I hope that when everything is said and done, there will be at least a line which says that Michael Jackson was a musician who managed to do what world leaders failed to do, namely appeal to people across cultures, boundaries and ideologies.
Monday, March 09, 2009
Zimbabwe Prime Minister: Accident or Hit?
As Zimbabwe mourns the tragic death of Susan Nyaradzo Tsvangirai there is a lot of speculation around the cause of the accident last Friday. Robert Mugabe, the 85 year old President of Zimbabwe and his ZANU-PF party have lost so much credibility, that they were the first suspects in the car accident which killed the Prime Minister's wife and almost killed Morgan Tsvangirai as well. It is still a miracle that he walked away from the accident scene with relatively minor injuries.
There have been a series of suspicious car accidents in the history of ZANU-PF. From Herbet Chitepo and Josiah Tongogara, to Chris Ushewokunze, Moven Mahachi, Zororo Duri, Peter Pamire, Border Gezi and Elliot Manyika. And there are others who died in a suspicious manner. And all these were ZANU-PF people and no one has ever counted the deaths of people who were from opposition movements and perceived to be enemies by ZANU-PF. Zimbabweans have over the years come to believe that Mugabe and his henchmen orchestrate car accidents to eliminate opponents. This conviction is so strong that when news broke out of the Tsvangirai accident last Friday night, there was a unanimous opinion that it was Mugabe and his people who "arranged" for it to happen.
There is even a report that there was "panic" in the President's Office when they heard the news because Mugabe knew that fingers will automatically point to him. Apparently he called all his senior people to check whether anybody had anything to do with it. No wonder Mugabe, his wife Grace and almost the entire ZANU-PF leadership was quick to get to the Avenues Clinic on Friday evening to see Tsvangirai. They also made sure that the press and TV crew was there in order to give this visit as much publicity as possible. Mugabe even wrote an open letter to Tsvangirai in "his time of grief." This is the first time in the history of Zimbabwe that such a high powered ZANU-PF delegation led by Mugabe descended on a hospital to visit someone who a few months ago they all vowed that he will never rule Zimbabwe, someone they deeply despised and accused of being a puppet of the West. Someone they have on four occasions in the last 10 years attempted to kill. There was so much irony about that picture of Robert and Grace Mugabe "deeply touched" by Tsvangirai's condition in hospital and the loss of the his wife.
When the dust has settled, we will need to review all those images once more and understand their rich symbolism.
Some people have speculated that Mugabe was shedding crocodile tears and was not genuine and that deep down he wished Tsvangirai had died, even if he himself might not have caused the accident. Others think he was concerned about the suspicion and had to react quickly by going to the clinic. Others however think Mugabe really knows he needs Tsvangirai and wants him unharmed, because Tsvangirai is the only person at the moment who can lead Zimbabwe out of the chaos it is in and facilitate for Mugabe to get a dignified exit. We might never know the real truth behind this tragedy, but the Prime Minister himself who has just arrived back from Botswana this afternoon seems to believe that it was a mere traffic accident. At least that is the opinion he is preaching publicly.
As a matter of fact it is a position which is more likely to be closer to be truth than the possibility of a Mugabe hit. The circumstances around the accident point more towards an accident than a hit. Unlike in all the past "accidents", the identities of the truck drivers involved were never publicised and the owner of the cars involved was kept a secret. The police would simply say they are investigating and these investigations never came to an end. In this case, the owners of the trucks as well as the driver are known and it looks like Mugabe has nothing to hide.
But having said that, it doesn't mean that Mugabe and his regime are innocent. They carry all the blame for this particular accident because of the following.
1. Terrible Road Conditions in Zimbabwe
Mugabe has destroyed the good infrastructure he inherited from the previous government. The roads are in such a poor state that there is danger lurking at every corner. Roads are no longer regularly maintained, potholes all over. It is possible the truck driver veered to the other side to avoid a huge pothole or some damage on the road.
This specific road between Beitbridge-Masvingo-Chivhu-Harare has become so bad that many accidents and deaths occur on this road. Of course they don't get the publicity like the one involving the Prime Minister.
2. Trucks on Roads Because of the Need for Aid
The number of haulage trucks on Zimbabwe's highways has increased tremendously over the last 5 to 10 years. Because there is almost nothing that is being manufactured within the country, most goods have to come from outside the country. Most of them come from South Africa or Botswana. Be they medicines, cooking oil, mealie-meal, petrol, car parts, clothes etc. Many shops and clinics and pharmacies stock South African products. This requires transportation of these goods throughout the country. Trucks are a common and dangerous feature of Zimbabwe's roads today. Any driver on Zimbabwe roads has had a series of near death experiences with these trucks. The truck which collided with the Prime Minister's car was carrying humanitarian aid. The need for humanitarian aid is because of Mugabe's mismanagement.
3. Tsvangirai's Lack of Police Convoy
The motorcade that accompanies Robert Mugabe is quite a sight. One can count over 15 cars, army trucks, an ambulance (with a doctor inside), police cars etc. Whenever he approaches the police on motorbikes and cars who are usually well ahead of Mugabe's car stop any oncoming traffic. Cars have to stop and pull out of the way so that no car is moving as Mugabe passes. An accident like the one on Friday would never happen with Mugabe's motorcade because the truck involved would have been stopped way before Mugabe passed. Mugabe is one of the most paranoid presidents in a country not at war, in spite of his claim that he is a man for the people (the same people he is afraid of). He is heavily guarded. Tsvangirai has always found this security around Mugabe disgusting and he despises it. That could also explain why he didn't push to get the same level of security as Mugabe. Of course he overlooked that danger could come from a traffic accident and not necessarily from someone trying to kill him. The Zimbabwe VIP protection unit should have arranged a police escort for all the trips Tsvangirai takes since he became Prime Minister.
From this perspective, Mugabe might not have engineered the accident (not this time) but the blame lies to a great extent on his shoulders.
As we mourn Susan Nyaradzo (which means "comfort") Tsvangirai, we find comfort in the fact that she has been on the right side of history, has been a role model for courage in times of great adversity (many wondered how she managed to handle the stress and dangers surrounding Morgan's safety over the last 10 years).
We also pray and wish the Prime Minister great comfort and strength in this difficult time. He has suffered such great pain in the past (4 attempted murders, brutal police beatings, jail time etc.) but the loss of his wife in this manner might be greatest pain he ever suffered.
But he is a man who knows and believes strongly in his calling. We want to believe what the MDC Secretary-General and Finance Minister (Tendai Biti) said " we have taken blows before and we will also take this one and move on."
There is so much work to do in Zimbabwe and Tsvangirai is needed now more than ever.
There have been a series of suspicious car accidents in the history of ZANU-PF. From Herbet Chitepo and Josiah Tongogara, to Chris Ushewokunze, Moven Mahachi, Zororo Duri, Peter Pamire, Border Gezi and Elliot Manyika. And there are others who died in a suspicious manner. And all these were ZANU-PF people and no one has ever counted the deaths of people who were from opposition movements and perceived to be enemies by ZANU-PF. Zimbabweans have over the years come to believe that Mugabe and his henchmen orchestrate car accidents to eliminate opponents. This conviction is so strong that when news broke out of the Tsvangirai accident last Friday night, there was a unanimous opinion that it was Mugabe and his people who "arranged" for it to happen.
There is even a report that there was "panic" in the President's Office when they heard the news because Mugabe knew that fingers will automatically point to him. Apparently he called all his senior people to check whether anybody had anything to do with it. No wonder Mugabe, his wife Grace and almost the entire ZANU-PF leadership was quick to get to the Avenues Clinic on Friday evening to see Tsvangirai. They also made sure that the press and TV crew was there in order to give this visit as much publicity as possible. Mugabe even wrote an open letter to Tsvangirai in "his time of grief." This is the first time in the history of Zimbabwe that such a high powered ZANU-PF delegation led by Mugabe descended on a hospital to visit someone who a few months ago they all vowed that he will never rule Zimbabwe, someone they deeply despised and accused of being a puppet of the West. Someone they have on four occasions in the last 10 years attempted to kill. There was so much irony about that picture of Robert and Grace Mugabe "deeply touched" by Tsvangirai's condition in hospital and the loss of the his wife.
When the dust has settled, we will need to review all those images once more and understand their rich symbolism.
Some people have speculated that Mugabe was shedding crocodile tears and was not genuine and that deep down he wished Tsvangirai had died, even if he himself might not have caused the accident. Others think he was concerned about the suspicion and had to react quickly by going to the clinic. Others however think Mugabe really knows he needs Tsvangirai and wants him unharmed, because Tsvangirai is the only person at the moment who can lead Zimbabwe out of the chaos it is in and facilitate for Mugabe to get a dignified exit. We might never know the real truth behind this tragedy, but the Prime Minister himself who has just arrived back from Botswana this afternoon seems to believe that it was a mere traffic accident. At least that is the opinion he is preaching publicly.
As a matter of fact it is a position which is more likely to be closer to be truth than the possibility of a Mugabe hit. The circumstances around the accident point more towards an accident than a hit. Unlike in all the past "accidents", the identities of the truck drivers involved were never publicised and the owner of the cars involved was kept a secret. The police would simply say they are investigating and these investigations never came to an end. In this case, the owners of the trucks as well as the driver are known and it looks like Mugabe has nothing to hide.
But having said that, it doesn't mean that Mugabe and his regime are innocent. They carry all the blame for this particular accident because of the following.
1. Terrible Road Conditions in Zimbabwe
Mugabe has destroyed the good infrastructure he inherited from the previous government. The roads are in such a poor state that there is danger lurking at every corner. Roads are no longer regularly maintained, potholes all over. It is possible the truck driver veered to the other side to avoid a huge pothole or some damage on the road.
This specific road between Beitbridge-Masvingo-Chivhu-Harare has become so bad that many accidents and deaths occur on this road. Of course they don't get the publicity like the one involving the Prime Minister.
2. Trucks on Roads Because of the Need for Aid
The number of haulage trucks on Zimbabwe's highways has increased tremendously over the last 5 to 10 years. Because there is almost nothing that is being manufactured within the country, most goods have to come from outside the country. Most of them come from South Africa or Botswana. Be they medicines, cooking oil, mealie-meal, petrol, car parts, clothes etc. Many shops and clinics and pharmacies stock South African products. This requires transportation of these goods throughout the country. Trucks are a common and dangerous feature of Zimbabwe's roads today. Any driver on Zimbabwe roads has had a series of near death experiences with these trucks. The truck which collided with the Prime Minister's car was carrying humanitarian aid. The need for humanitarian aid is because of Mugabe's mismanagement.
3. Tsvangirai's Lack of Police Convoy
The motorcade that accompanies Robert Mugabe is quite a sight. One can count over 15 cars, army trucks, an ambulance (with a doctor inside), police cars etc. Whenever he approaches the police on motorbikes and cars who are usually well ahead of Mugabe's car stop any oncoming traffic. Cars have to stop and pull out of the way so that no car is moving as Mugabe passes. An accident like the one on Friday would never happen with Mugabe's motorcade because the truck involved would have been stopped way before Mugabe passed. Mugabe is one of the most paranoid presidents in a country not at war, in spite of his claim that he is a man for the people (the same people he is afraid of). He is heavily guarded. Tsvangirai has always found this security around Mugabe disgusting and he despises it. That could also explain why he didn't push to get the same level of security as Mugabe. Of course he overlooked that danger could come from a traffic accident and not necessarily from someone trying to kill him. The Zimbabwe VIP protection unit should have arranged a police escort for all the trips Tsvangirai takes since he became Prime Minister.
From this perspective, Mugabe might not have engineered the accident (not this time) but the blame lies to a great extent on his shoulders.
As we mourn Susan Nyaradzo (which means "comfort") Tsvangirai, we find comfort in the fact that she has been on the right side of history, has been a role model for courage in times of great adversity (many wondered how she managed to handle the stress and dangers surrounding Morgan's safety over the last 10 years).
We also pray and wish the Prime Minister great comfort and strength in this difficult time. He has suffered such great pain in the past (4 attempted murders, brutal police beatings, jail time etc.) but the loss of his wife in this manner might be greatest pain he ever suffered.
But he is a man who knows and believes strongly in his calling. We want to believe what the MDC Secretary-General and Finance Minister (Tendai Biti) said " we have taken blows before and we will also take this one and move on."
There is so much work to do in Zimbabwe and Tsvangirai is needed now more than ever.
Friday, January 30, 2009
The MDC Pragmatic and Calculated Gamble
The national executive of the MDC-T (Zimbabwe) decided today (30 January) to enter the inclusive goverment with Robert Mugabe's ZANU-PF and the other MDC faction lead by Arthur Mutambara. Ever since the signing of the Global Agreement on September 15, the MDC has been holding out on the implementation of this agreement because they accused Robert Mugabe of betraying the spirit and in some cases the letter of the agreement. Robert Mugabe unilaterary appointed the provincial governors (who although they don't seat in cabinet, have ministerial status), the Governor of the Reserve Bank (renewed the failed Gideon Gono's contract) and the Attorney General. Mugabe also unilaterally decided on the allocation of ministries and claimed tht he as President has the prerogative to do that and appoint senior governement officials and Ambassadors. This would be true in a case where the President has been elected by the people and has a mandate. The March 29, 2008 election results show that Robert Mugabe came second to Morgan Tsvangirai and ZANU-PF is no longer the largest party in parliament. The current position of President and Prime Minister came out of a negotiated compromise and the spirit of that settlement demands that the President consults all the other parties and shares senior psotions among all parties.
It was always known that the greatest challenge to face this inclusive government as defined by the Sept 15, 2008 agreement was going to be trust between the two parties (ZANU-PF and the the two MDC factions). There has been so much animosity between the parties and the Mugabe government has terrorised the MDC leadership over the last 10 years. It is therefore crucial for Mugabe to make concrete gestures towards the MDC in order to create an environment of trust. Things such as allocation of positions would not have been so controversial if there was already a trust relationship between the parties. The MDC wouldn't have been so concerned about a ZANU-PF minister running the Home Affairs ministry, if they trusted that ZANU-PF would not abuse the position. These concerns have already been evidenced by the unwarranted arrests and abductions of MDC and civil soceity activitists towards the end of 2008. There are huge concerns about Mugabe's sincerity in ensuring that this fragile deal succeeds. As already mentioned, it's all about trust and making moves that show a willingness to establish that trust. So far, the Mugabe regime (which is illegitimate because they lost the March 2008 elections) has not given anybody reason to trust it. The continuous demonization of Morgan Tsvangirai and the MDC in the Zimbabwe public media (The Herald, ZBC) and at public functions, is another sign of either madness or stupidity or the evil nature of the Mugabe government. Anybody with an IQ if a 7 year old would know that during times of negotiations and when one is trying to build a relationship with another party, one has to mind how they speak about the other party. Mugabe seems to have lost all sense of normalcy and decency in this regard.
The MDC has therefore been appealing to SADC to look at its concerns and understand why it hasn't gone into the governement. SADC was also requested to call Mugabe to order and force him to play by the rules of fairness. Unfortunatelty SADC has not been willing to exert pressure on Mugabe and hence the stand-off.
Even after the November 2008 SADC Extra-ordinary Summit in Sandton/Johannesburg where SADC ruled that the Home Affairs Ministry be "co-ministered" by both MDC and ZANU-PF, the MDC was still unwilling to be part of the government. There have been further SADC initiatives in 2009 to get things going, including the issuing of a passport to Morgan Tsvangirai and finally the January 26 2009 SADC Head of States Summit in Pretoria. After this summit, the MDC leadership finally decided (though reluctantly) to go into the inclusive government. The timelines have been set, namely the passing of Ammendement 19 on Februry 5, swearing in of PM and Deputy PMs on February 11 and the swearing in of Cabinet Ministers on February 13. This decision has evoked various responses from various people. Some think that Robert Mugabe is not genuine about the deal and will want to swallow up the MDC. They believe Mugabe is not keen to give up any meaningful power but only interested in his own survival. And without Mugabe giving up power, this government won't succeed.
But I am of the opinion that if the MDC plays it cards well, it can really use this governement to achieve its ultimate goal namely, to rid Zimbabwe of Mugabe and ZANU-PF and all the corruption and misrule they brought with. This would lead to a prosperous Zimbabwe again. And I am sure that was the pragmatic thinking that led to the MDC agreeing to go into the inclusive government, although it didn't get 100% of what it asked for from SADC. The following are the eleven reasons for my pragmatic optimism.
It was always known that the greatest challenge to face this inclusive government as defined by the Sept 15, 2008 agreement was going to be trust between the two parties (ZANU-PF and the the two MDC factions). There has been so much animosity between the parties and the Mugabe government has terrorised the MDC leadership over the last 10 years. It is therefore crucial for Mugabe to make concrete gestures towards the MDC in order to create an environment of trust. Things such as allocation of positions would not have been so controversial if there was already a trust relationship between the parties. The MDC wouldn't have been so concerned about a ZANU-PF minister running the Home Affairs ministry, if they trusted that ZANU-PF would not abuse the position. These concerns have already been evidenced by the unwarranted arrests and abductions of MDC and civil soceity activitists towards the end of 2008. There are huge concerns about Mugabe's sincerity in ensuring that this fragile deal succeeds. As already mentioned, it's all about trust and making moves that show a willingness to establish that trust. So far, the Mugabe regime (which is illegitimate because they lost the March 2008 elections) has not given anybody reason to trust it. The continuous demonization of Morgan Tsvangirai and the MDC in the Zimbabwe public media (The Herald, ZBC) and at public functions, is another sign of either madness or stupidity or the evil nature of the Mugabe government. Anybody with an IQ if a 7 year old would know that during times of negotiations and when one is trying to build a relationship with another party, one has to mind how they speak about the other party. Mugabe seems to have lost all sense of normalcy and decency in this regard.
The MDC has therefore been appealing to SADC to look at its concerns and understand why it hasn't gone into the governement. SADC was also requested to call Mugabe to order and force him to play by the rules of fairness. Unfortunatelty SADC has not been willing to exert pressure on Mugabe and hence the stand-off.
Even after the November 2008 SADC Extra-ordinary Summit in Sandton/Johannesburg where SADC ruled that the Home Affairs Ministry be "co-ministered" by both MDC and ZANU-PF, the MDC was still unwilling to be part of the government. There have been further SADC initiatives in 2009 to get things going, including the issuing of a passport to Morgan Tsvangirai and finally the January 26 2009 SADC Head of States Summit in Pretoria. After this summit, the MDC leadership finally decided (though reluctantly) to go into the inclusive government. The timelines have been set, namely the passing of Ammendement 19 on Februry 5, swearing in of PM and Deputy PMs on February 11 and the swearing in of Cabinet Ministers on February 13. This decision has evoked various responses from various people. Some think that Robert Mugabe is not genuine about the deal and will want to swallow up the MDC. They believe Mugabe is not keen to give up any meaningful power but only interested in his own survival. And without Mugabe giving up power, this government won't succeed.
But I am of the opinion that if the MDC plays it cards well, it can really use this governement to achieve its ultimate goal namely, to rid Zimbabwe of Mugabe and ZANU-PF and all the corruption and misrule they brought with. This would lead to a prosperous Zimbabwe again. And I am sure that was the pragmatic thinking that led to the MDC agreeing to go into the inclusive government, although it didn't get 100% of what it asked for from SADC. The following are the eleven reasons for my pragmatic optimism.
1. MDC Limited by SADC and AU
Zimbabwe is part of SADC and AU and the way world politics work, the regional bodies are the first port of call in cases of controversy. That is why the AU mandated SADC to deal with Zimbabwe. Morgan Tsvangirai can not receive a hearing from AU unless SADC facilitates it and the MDC is keenly aware of that. The MDC has been raising concerns about the fairness of Thabo Mbeki and of SADC. It has been a frustrating situation, especially given the fact that the UN is limited by the China and Russia vetoes in the Security Council on the matter of Zimbabwe. After pushing SADC as hard as it could, the MDC realised that they won't get more than the concessions they got on January 26. Even an appeal to the AU won't bring much because the AU will listen to SADC's report and give it more preference to the MDC report. And the fact that the AU has much "more serious issues" to deal with (e.g. Darfur, DRCongo etc) means it wouldn't put much effort in the Zimbabwe situation. Some people have called for the MDC to ignore SADC and go it alone, but that is a dangerous road to take. Zimbabwe is such a small matter on the global agenda (given the current global financial crisis, Gaza crisis, Burma crisis, DRCongo etc.) and to find oneself outside the regional bodies would weaken the MDC voice. There are cases which have been ignored by the world after a while e.g. Somalia. There is no functioning governement in Somalia and the world has given up. No more media coverage. Zimbabwe would fall off the world radar screen if the MDC ignores SADC. One can have one's own opinion about the effectiveness of SADC and AU in resolving the Zimbabwe situation, but the MDC leadership knows that one needs them in order to play world politics. And therefore the MDC accepted the SADC ruling of January 26 and Morgan Tsvangirai clearly mentioned that they can't afford to disregard SADC.
2. MDC Majority in Parliament and Speaker's Position
The MDC formations have a majority in parliament and the MDC-T has the powerful position of Speaker of Parliament. This a huge power base to push some reforms in Zimabwe. The greatest problem in Zimbabwe are the structural defects of the system. Too much power is vested in the President and if the President is Mugabe, you have a problem. The consitution is defective and the Mugabe government has basically politicised state institutions. It is important to reform the state and therefore th parliamentary majority will be very key for the MDC. Mugabe can not get his way in parliament and a simple thing like the national budget would not get through without the MDC support.
3. MDC Majority in Cabinet
Of the 31 cabinet positions, ZANU-PF will have 15 and MDC 16. This is a slim majority but it is still a majority for the MDC. The way government works is that policy is formulated in cabinet. There has been so much talk about who runs Home Affairs but if one looks at how government works, the minister of home affairs is subjected to cabinet. The minister is not above cabinet and for all practical purposes the question of who actually is minister has been over exaagerated in my opinion. Cabinet makes policy, decides on direction the country should take, controls all organs of government. The MDC majority in cabinet can be exploited to bring about change.
4. MDC Controls of Majority of Local Governments
In the March 2008 elections the MDC won the local governement elections in all major cities and towns and many rural councils. The MDC controls Harare, Bulawayo, Gweru, Mutare, Masvingo, Chitungwiza, Chinhoyi, Zvishavane, Kwe Kwe etc. The MDC also made huge inroads in some rural councils and has a strong presence in these local governments. This fact has been often overlooked in the course of the controversy around the implementation of the agreement. MDC controlled local governments will make it difficult for Mugabe to manipulate the people. Local governments are in direct contact with the people and the MDC can use these to mobilise people.
5. JOMIC- A Monitoring Mechanism
The Joint Monitoring and Implementation Committee (JOMIC) was activated soon after the January 26 SADC summit. It is made up of 4 members from each of the 3 parties i.e. 12 people. JOMIC is co-chaired by people from these 3 parties. It's role is to receive any complaints or matters that pertain to the implementation of the agreement, look at them and try to resolve them. It will monitor the compliance with the agreement. If ZANU-PF "misbehaves" JOMIC will look at the matter and recomend what action to take. Mugabe has been notorious for disregarding monitoring bodies, but the fact that SADC instituted JOMIC means SADC will be involved (though indirectly) in JOMIC
6. Reviews of Unilateral Appointments
One of the biggest concessions Mugabe was forced to make at the SADC summit was to accept that the appointments he made after September 2008 and the allocation of cabinet positions will need to be reviewed. SADC ruled that the cabinet appointments be reviewed 6 months after the swearing in of government and the other appointments (e.g. Attorney General) to be reviewed by the new government. Mugabe can not just appoint without consulting the MDC. The appointments of the 9 governors will also be reviewed.
7. Constitutional Changes in 18 Months
The global agreement of September 2008 stipulates that a new constitution will be put up for a referendum within 18 months of swearing in of government. This would be a major victory for the MDC and civic soceity in Zimbabwe. The woes of Zimbabwe emanate from a fundamenatlly flawed constitution. Robert Mugabe has been ammending the constitution over the last 29 years in order to suit his corrupt and brutal tendencies. A new constitution would change Zimbabwe from what it is today to a modern and democratic state.
8. The Prime Minister's Position
As already submitted, the issue of which party runs which ministry has been, in my opinion, over exxagerated. A key player in the government will be the Prime Minister and his deputies. Morgan Tsvangirai will be Prime Minister and Vice-Chair of Cabinet. Although Mugabe will be head of state and chair of cabinet, all cabinet ministers will report also to the Prime Minister. Morgan Tsvangirai will be able to use his office to ensure ZANU-PF ministers toe the line. Given that MDC will have majority in cabinet, they could push many issues on their agenda through. They will also be able to control ZANU-PF.
9. MDC in Government Can Reform State Institutions
MDC in government can achieve much in reforming state institutions that have been abused by Mugabe over the years e.g. State Media, Youth Training Programs, National Events, Police, Army etc. There is one other issue that too has gone unnoticed, and that is the fact that the rank and file of Zimbabweans working in these institutions are fed up with Mugabe. It is the top bosses who benefit from the regime. The majority of the rank and file of the employees can't wait for the renewal of the state. They often do what they are told and as soon as Morgan Tsavngirai becomes Prime Minister and acquires a position of authority, they will support him. If one talks to individual governement employess, policemen/women, soldiers, the vast majority of them are fed up with Mugabe because he has impoverished them. They would support an MDC led government. There is a lot of goodwill towards the MDC among the common people.
The MDC in governement can use this to achieve its goals. I covered a lot of the detail in this regard in my previous articles.
http://alvin-mas.blogspot.com/2008/09/zimbabwe-dealis-glass-half-empty-or.html
10. Mugabe is 85 and Will Soon Leave
Robert Mugabe is 85 years old, tired, weary and is not in the best of health. It is almost 99.99% certain that he will not stand as the ZANU-PF candidate in the next general election (2014). He would be 90 then (if he is still alive). I am sure the MDC had that in mind when they decided to go into government. Without Mugabe ZANU-PF will not survive in its current state. The party is very divided and has lost its grassroot organisational infrastructure. It is a party of the past and does not enthuse people any more. It has managed to present an image of its existence up to now because it has abused its position in government. Using state resources unchecked and state media it has pretended that all is well. In an inclusive government ZANU-PF will have to fight for the hearts and minds of Zimbabweans like any other party with no unfair advantage. And with an 85 year old leader, it is only a question of time before MDC finally takes over from ZANU-PF. Many battles are won in stages and this is one of them. My guess is that within 3 years Mugabe will give way or he will be too old or too sick to continue.
11. The Economy
The Zimbabwe economy has virtually collapsed and everybody (including Mugabe) knows that only an effective involvement of the MDC in government will revive the economy. Mugabe has always used two major weapons to stay in power and eliminate enemies i.e. bribery or brutal force. He could bribe in the days he could plunder the state coffers. At this moment in time there is nothing to plunder and he can't even afford to pay his own police and soldiers. Dangerous as Mugabe might be, he is currently severly weakened. There is very little he can give to his cronies. The presentation of a budget in US dollars by Patrick Chinamasa (Acting Minister of Finance) in Zimbabwe parliament last week is indicative of the fact that Mugabe no longer has any money. The Zimbabwe dollar, he has been printing is now worthless. He definitely doesn't have enough US dollars to bribe so many people. The Zimabwe economy has effectively been dollarised. All transactions, even selling newspapers on the street or taxi fares, are now being conducted in US dollars or South African Rands. That has taken away a lot of Mugabe's economic power. This is an opportunity for the MDC to raise its profile through reviving the economy.
Conclusion
This is of course an optimistic analysis but there is good reason to believe it. Everybody (including SADC) knows that Mugabe and ZANU-PF are the problem and they see this as a transition to a "Mugabe-free" era in Zimbabwe.
It is now imperative for the western donors and funders to support the MDC in its role in the new government. The MDC did not take this decision lightly, but it was the best they could do given the situation.
Monday, January 19, 2009
The Pressure of Being Barack Obama
There is no doubt that January 20 will mark a significant milestone in world affairs and even more so in the history of the United States of America. The inauguration of Barack Obama as the 44th President of the USA will be different to any other inauguration of a US President before him. Barack Obama will not only be the first African American to move into the Oval Office, but he would also have been the President-Elect with the highest approval ratings in history (over 70% according to the poll done a few days ago). And as fate would have it, Barack Obama's inauguration on January 20, takes a place a day after Martin Luther King's birthday (19 January) and that has great symbolism. Martin Luther King would have indeed wept tears of joy if he were alive today, because an African American tenant in the White House would have been part of his dream.
But besides being the first African American president, Obama comes into the office as a president carrying on his shoulders an unbelievably huge amount of pressure due to the extremely large expectations from many people. First and foremost Obama was elected and is the president of the USA and should respond to the needs and demands of the US citizens, but it looks like the whole world seems to demand and expect that he solves the world's problems.
Whether he will meet these expectations remains to be seen, and as Warren Buffet said to Tom Bronkaw on NBC "I have no doubt that Barack Obama will be a good Commander-in-Chief, but he might not be able to meet all the people's expectations."
Watching the WE ARE ONE event at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC on Sunday 18 January with the hundreds of thousands of people who braved the freezing weather to attend the event and the star-studded cast of celebrities who definitely donated their talents and time to celebrate the coming of Obama into office, one got a sense that America was yearning for a new day. One could feel a real sense of joy and a real sense of hope that things would become better. And somehow one could also sense a great sigh of relief that the Bush era was finally over.
The pressure on Barack Obama's shoulders must be tremendous although he doesn't seem to be showing it. And as we observed during the gruelling 2 years of campaigning in the primary and main elections, Obama has the amazing ability to take such pressures in his stride. There are huge expectations from the US population and the whole world.
1. Fixing The US Economy
The US and indeed the world economy is in the deepest recession ever since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Financial institutions have gone bankrupt and some had to be bailed-out at a large expense to the taxpayer. Most of the market indicators have been on a decline for a long time now. World prices of resources have been decreasing, oil price moved from over $120 to about $50 a barrel, platinum price has gone from over $2 000 per ounce to below
$1 000. And all this in a few months. This economic downturn has had huge impact on manufacturing, mining, retail and service industries. The bosses of the big three car manufacturers in the USA had to travel to Congress to beg for assistance to rescue the industry. Of course this has led to serious job losses and retrenchments.
The US population is resting its hopes on Barack Obama. They expect him to fix the economy, put America back on track, ensure that the good times come back and the economic boom returns.
2. Healing The US Society
The Bush years have polarised the US society. Some people argue that even Bill Clinton was a polarizing president, and evoked strong feelings on both sides of the divide i.e. those who liked him adored him like a god but those who didn't like him, hated him. But there is no doubt that George W Bush was a divisive president and this has mainly to do with with the controversial way that he won the 2000 presidential election against Al Gore. There are many people who still believe that the US elections in 2000 were rigged, especially in Florida. The final outcome of that election was determined by the courts and Al Gore decided not to take the matter further with the courts for the sake of the nation and for fear of tearing the country apart through a legal battle.
Then the Bush policies on the war on terror and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan led to divided opinions among the Americans.
It must however be said that some of the challenges the USA faced during the Bush era were not necessarily of Bush's creation (e.g. Sept 11, 2001 attacks and subsequent responses) but George Bush did not do a good job to take the nation along as he tried to solve them. Somehow there seemed to be a disconnect between the president and the people. As a result, towards the end of his presidency he had the lowest approval ratings in the history of the USA.
Therefore, the US American society is looking forward to a healing of the nation during the Obama presidency. There are expectations that Obama will be a unifying leader.
3. Resolving World Problems
Not just the US Americans, but the entire world seems to see Obama as a saviour. From Europe to Asia to Africa to the Americas, the entire world population has high expectations. This is likely due to a sense that the Bush administration pursued unilateralist policies and America went on its own in trying to resolve world problems. In the process the USA became isolated on the world stage.
Obama is seen as a bridge builder and one the world can do business with. Besides the high level political relationships on the world stage, common citizens of many countries expect Obama to be instrumental in solving their own problems. Be it in Africa (where Obama's father came from) or in the the occupied territories of Palestine or Cuba, people hope the Obama presidency will make a positive difference in their lives. No one knows exactly how that will happen, but they still hope in any case.
There are many hot spots in the world where a credible leadership of the US government is needed and there is a strong sense that the Obama government might stand a better chance of making a difference than the Bush government. Be it in the Sudan or the Israel-Palestinian conflict or in the relationship of Russia with Europe.
One thing is certain, Obama will need to manage the huge expectations people have and there are signs that he is fully aware of these expectations. He has already been hinting that solving some of these major challenges will take a lot of work and time and that people have to be patient.
We will only know at the end of his term how he handled the huge pressure and whether he indeed manage to meet the expectations of the 6 billion plus world population.
In the meantime let us let Washington DC and the whole of the USA have is big inauguration party on January 20, because the real hard work will begin on January 21.
But besides being the first African American president, Obama comes into the office as a president carrying on his shoulders an unbelievably huge amount of pressure due to the extremely large expectations from many people. First and foremost Obama was elected and is the president of the USA and should respond to the needs and demands of the US citizens, but it looks like the whole world seems to demand and expect that he solves the world's problems.
Whether he will meet these expectations remains to be seen, and as Warren Buffet said to Tom Bronkaw on NBC "I have no doubt that Barack Obama will be a good Commander-in-Chief, but he might not be able to meet all the people's expectations."
Watching the WE ARE ONE event at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC on Sunday 18 January with the hundreds of thousands of people who braved the freezing weather to attend the event and the star-studded cast of celebrities who definitely donated their talents and time to celebrate the coming of Obama into office, one got a sense that America was yearning for a new day. One could feel a real sense of joy and a real sense of hope that things would become better. And somehow one could also sense a great sigh of relief that the Bush era was finally over.
The pressure on Barack Obama's shoulders must be tremendous although he doesn't seem to be showing it. And as we observed during the gruelling 2 years of campaigning in the primary and main elections, Obama has the amazing ability to take such pressures in his stride. There are huge expectations from the US population and the whole world.
1. Fixing The US Economy
The US and indeed the world economy is in the deepest recession ever since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Financial institutions have gone bankrupt and some had to be bailed-out at a large expense to the taxpayer. Most of the market indicators have been on a decline for a long time now. World prices of resources have been decreasing, oil price moved from over $120 to about $50 a barrel, platinum price has gone from over $2 000 per ounce to below
$1 000. And all this in a few months. This economic downturn has had huge impact on manufacturing, mining, retail and service industries. The bosses of the big three car manufacturers in the USA had to travel to Congress to beg for assistance to rescue the industry. Of course this has led to serious job losses and retrenchments.
The US population is resting its hopes on Barack Obama. They expect him to fix the economy, put America back on track, ensure that the good times come back and the economic boom returns.
2. Healing The US Society
The Bush years have polarised the US society. Some people argue that even Bill Clinton was a polarizing president, and evoked strong feelings on both sides of the divide i.e. those who liked him adored him like a god but those who didn't like him, hated him. But there is no doubt that George W Bush was a divisive president and this has mainly to do with with the controversial way that he won the 2000 presidential election against Al Gore. There are many people who still believe that the US elections in 2000 were rigged, especially in Florida. The final outcome of that election was determined by the courts and Al Gore decided not to take the matter further with the courts for the sake of the nation and for fear of tearing the country apart through a legal battle.
Then the Bush policies on the war on terror and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan led to divided opinions among the Americans.
It must however be said that some of the challenges the USA faced during the Bush era were not necessarily of Bush's creation (e.g. Sept 11, 2001 attacks and subsequent responses) but George Bush did not do a good job to take the nation along as he tried to solve them. Somehow there seemed to be a disconnect between the president and the people. As a result, towards the end of his presidency he had the lowest approval ratings in the history of the USA.
Therefore, the US American society is looking forward to a healing of the nation during the Obama presidency. There are expectations that Obama will be a unifying leader.
3. Resolving World Problems
Not just the US Americans, but the entire world seems to see Obama as a saviour. From Europe to Asia to Africa to the Americas, the entire world population has high expectations. This is likely due to a sense that the Bush administration pursued unilateralist policies and America went on its own in trying to resolve world problems. In the process the USA became isolated on the world stage.
Obama is seen as a bridge builder and one the world can do business with. Besides the high level political relationships on the world stage, common citizens of many countries expect Obama to be instrumental in solving their own problems. Be it in Africa (where Obama's father came from) or in the the occupied territories of Palestine or Cuba, people hope the Obama presidency will make a positive difference in their lives. No one knows exactly how that will happen, but they still hope in any case.
There are many hot spots in the world where a credible leadership of the US government is needed and there is a strong sense that the Obama government might stand a better chance of making a difference than the Bush government. Be it in the Sudan or the Israel-Palestinian conflict or in the relationship of Russia with Europe.
One thing is certain, Obama will need to manage the huge expectations people have and there are signs that he is fully aware of these expectations. He has already been hinting that solving some of these major challenges will take a lot of work and time and that people have to be patient.
We will only know at the end of his term how he handled the huge pressure and whether he indeed manage to meet the expectations of the 6 billion plus world population.
In the meantime let us let Washington DC and the whole of the USA have is big inauguration party on January 20, because the real hard work will begin on January 21.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
How Obama Won the US Presidency
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
