The African National Congress (South African ruling party) issued a statement last week expressing its disappointment with the fact that the ASA (Athletics South Africa) meeting had decided that there was no reason for anyone in its leadership to be fired or to resign due to the Caster Semenya debacle. In spite of the fact that ASA President Leornard Chuene publicly declared a week earlier that he had indeed lied and misled the nation about whether any gender tests were conducted on Caster before the Berlin tournament in August. Chuene had publicly declared that he was not aware on any such tests, it turned out, he knew that tests were done and there was even a recommendation to withdraw Caster from the tournament. He even had the audacity to claim that he lied to protect Caster and by inference that he would do it again in similar situation.
We all remember the accusations made by many political and sport leaders soon after Caster won gold in Berlin and the media started to question Caster's gender. The allegations were also targeted towards the "racist whites who were attacking Caster because she was black." It was sickening to hear leaders play cheap politics with this issue. Asked whether they knew that Caster's gender would a controversial issue in Berlin, ASA and Chuene said they didn't know or anticipate it and they were surprised by the furore.The confession by Chuene that he lied implies that ASA knew that there would be questions around Caster. Either way one looks at it, Chuene and ASA lied to the nation and the world.Even the Department of Sports of South Africa asked that Chuene must go. Of course sport bodies like ASA do not directly fall under the government and government can't hire and fire the sports officials.
The ANC too had blindly bought into Chuene's lies and accused people who questioned Caster's gender as white racists and jealous people. ANC Youth League president Julius Malema was at the forefront of "attacking" anybody who questioned Caster's gender. One has to be extremely naive or outright stupid to deny that Caster is not your average girl and rather than being sober about it and look at the issue, ANC politicians and ASA officials decided to arrogantly insult anybody who asked questions.Therefore to now turn and be disappointed by ASA's decision not to act against anybody who misled the nation on Caster is extremely hypocritical of the ANC. It is also an insult to all of us to think that we are stupid enough to buy their hypocrisy.
Just as the ANC is hypocritical, so is ASA in claiming they lied to protect ASA. ASA knows the culture of lying, pretending, cheating and dishonesty in African leaders and therefore ask the question "why should anybody resign or be fired when no African leader resigns or is fired for messing up? Chuene is doing what everybody in a similar position does. How many African leaders (in all spheres of society and across the continent) have resigned for being dishonest, lying, cheating, misleading the nation and messing up?
African leaders don't resign and no one has the guts to fire them because whoever might have the "power" to fire them, is very likely to also have "skeletons in his/her closet."
The fundamental problem of many leaders in Africa is lack of accountability. This is made worse by the fact that society is either unable or unwilling to call them to account. There are literary thousands of cases where one shakes his or her head when looking at the arrogance of African leaders and the inability of society to call leaders to account.
What is even worse, sometimes society even condones and supports leaders who mess up. How many times have people toy-toyed at the courts in support of a leader who is being tried for corruption or for doing something unacceptable? One hears sentiments such as "corrupt or not corrupt, we support him." Until African societies begin to exercise their power to hold leaders to account and ensuring that leaders get the message loud and clear that "you mess up, you go" leaders will continue with their arrogance because they know they will get away with it.
The message to the ANC is "ASA will not act because African leaders don't resign. Accept it because you to have contributed to towards this culture."
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Caster Semenya Must Be Tested for Gender
Unfortunately there is very little that in this world that politicians can not abuse to score political points, seek popularity and be seen to be fighting for the cause of the people. As someone said this past week "when the athletics world stops talking about Usain Bolt..who broke two world records in amazing fashion within a week...then there must be something absolutely significant that has happened." This event is "Caster Semenya", the 18 year old South African who won the 800m female race at the IAAF event in Berlin this past week. She appeared literary from nowhere, was not at the Beijing Olympics last year and was was not known in the wider world until she rocked up in Berlin and beat her more experienced (and better sponsored ) competitors by such a margin, that she could have gone and taken a shower and get herself a drink afterwards before the other girls crossed the finish line.
But because she has a deep voice, muscular structure and physical appearance that resemble that of a man, the debate around her gender (is Cater male or female?) just exploded. It was already there (though low key) in the months and days building up to the IAAF event. It became significant when it became clear that she was faster than any of the 800m female competitors. If Caster had come last in the heats before the final and if she had been knocked out in the early rounds and therefore had no chance of winning anything, no one would have noticed her or even started to wonder if she was male or female.
Unlike the many politicans and sports leaders in South Africa who have started politicising the issue and seeing it as a racist attack by the whites on this poor African girl and all Africans in general, my opinion is that these politicians and leaders are playing cheap politics. The issue of Caster's gender is not primarily a political or racial matter. To accuse the whites and the IAAF of being racist reveals a level of ignorance or an attempt to mislead people that is disgusting. This however does not mean that there is no racism in sports, but one must not behave as if Caster is the first balck person to win against whites in international sport. Michael Johnson (the US athlete) broke a number of world records in the 200m race is black. The best soccer player, Pele, is black. The best basketball player who ever lived (Michael Jordan) is black, Usain Bolt himself is black, as well as many black male and female athletes who have beat white athletes in many competitions.
The question around Caster's gender is firmly based on the fact that international sports is big business these days. Forget the winner's prize (significant as it might be), the endorsement deals, sponsorship deals and other benefits (fame, publicity, TV appearances etc.) that come after winning major international events can be significant. We all are amazed at English premiership football players who earn 100 000 british pounds a week and think that's lots of money, but they actually make millions outside football by endorsing products and being part of commercials on TV and on billboards. Because of the huge stakes in international sport, it is only fair and just that anybody who plays the game is seen to abide by the rules. Any suspicion of anything untoward must be investigated. The fact that sport competitions are conducted separately for males and females mean that only females must participate in female events and only males in male events. Just like events that are conducted for certain age groups only (e.g. Under 17 or Under 23 soccer world cup etc.) which must be ensured that only players who meet the criteria participate.
International sport is brutal (because of the huge commercial stakes) and whoever participates in it must not be naive to believe that they can still have their privacy. As soon as one gets to the international scene, one becomes "public property". That could be seen as unfortunate, but it is reality. David Beckham, Usain Bolt, Kobbie Bryant, Ronaldo and Caster Semenya are "public property." Because they are in the limelight, whatever they do becomes public knowledge. If David Beckham is seen with another woman other than his wife under suspicious circumstances, that becomes headline news. Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing is another debate, but there is no debate around the fact that, this is now reality. Those who manage Caster should have coached her in this regard, that as soon as she starts appearing on Sky Sport, ESPN, BBC, CNN etc., she can forget about privacy. Whatever is newsworthy about her whill be discusssed without any reservation, and not just her running. The world will want to know who her boyfriend is, where did she sleep last night and whether she has smoked dagga before.
Since there is debate and no clarity (even among black South Africans) whether Caster is male or female, it is only fair and just that she be tested. The vast majority of those who say she is female do so on the basis of what Caster, her family and those close to her have said. But almost all black South Africans who have seen pictures of Caster, heard her voice and observed how she moves have said that she indeed appears like a man. It is not her fault that she is the way she is, she did not make herself the way she is, but since she has entered the public arena, registered to compete in public in a female event (and girl she can run) and any average person could have reasonable doubt about her gender without one being called stupid or naive or sexist, it is fair for the entire world that she be tested. As already mentioned these doubts are not only among whites, even blacks who have seen her have indicated that she indeed has very significant male features.
Therefore put the politics aside and look at the facts and issue. Of course one can critisize the IAAF or South African athletics authorities who should have seen this coming and should have been proactive and clarify this matter way in advance. The fact that they are now dealing with is after she won the gold medal might appear to be vindictive.
Caster Semenya must be tested for her gender not necessarily for her to know whether she is male or female, but for the sake of the entire world to close the chapter. Even if the IAAF rules on gender testing are fuzzy, she herself (and those managing her) must welcome and insist on a thorough test to clarify the matter. It is almost like someone who has been accused of a crime but believes in his/her innocence and therefore insists that they be cleared by a court of law. Anything less than that will leave a cloud hanging over one's head for the rest of their lives.
If she doesn't test, the media will not stop to raise the issue and she would not be able to handle the pressue of the public eye and not be able to prepare for future events and this might be the first and last big event she ever participated in.
But because she has a deep voice, muscular structure and physical appearance that resemble that of a man, the debate around her gender (is Cater male or female?) just exploded. It was already there (though low key) in the months and days building up to the IAAF event. It became significant when it became clear that she was faster than any of the 800m female competitors. If Caster had come last in the heats before the final and if she had been knocked out in the early rounds and therefore had no chance of winning anything, no one would have noticed her or even started to wonder if she was male or female.
Unlike the many politicans and sports leaders in South Africa who have started politicising the issue and seeing it as a racist attack by the whites on this poor African girl and all Africans in general, my opinion is that these politicians and leaders are playing cheap politics. The issue of Caster's gender is not primarily a political or racial matter. To accuse the whites and the IAAF of being racist reveals a level of ignorance or an attempt to mislead people that is disgusting. This however does not mean that there is no racism in sports, but one must not behave as if Caster is the first balck person to win against whites in international sport. Michael Johnson (the US athlete) broke a number of world records in the 200m race is black. The best soccer player, Pele, is black. The best basketball player who ever lived (Michael Jordan) is black, Usain Bolt himself is black, as well as many black male and female athletes who have beat white athletes in many competitions.
The question around Caster's gender is firmly based on the fact that international sports is big business these days. Forget the winner's prize (significant as it might be), the endorsement deals, sponsorship deals and other benefits (fame, publicity, TV appearances etc.) that come after winning major international events can be significant. We all are amazed at English premiership football players who earn 100 000 british pounds a week and think that's lots of money, but they actually make millions outside football by endorsing products and being part of commercials on TV and on billboards. Because of the huge stakes in international sport, it is only fair and just that anybody who plays the game is seen to abide by the rules. Any suspicion of anything untoward must be investigated. The fact that sport competitions are conducted separately for males and females mean that only females must participate in female events and only males in male events. Just like events that are conducted for certain age groups only (e.g. Under 17 or Under 23 soccer world cup etc.) which must be ensured that only players who meet the criteria participate.
International sport is brutal (because of the huge commercial stakes) and whoever participates in it must not be naive to believe that they can still have their privacy. As soon as one gets to the international scene, one becomes "public property". That could be seen as unfortunate, but it is reality. David Beckham, Usain Bolt, Kobbie Bryant, Ronaldo and Caster Semenya are "public property." Because they are in the limelight, whatever they do becomes public knowledge. If David Beckham is seen with another woman other than his wife under suspicious circumstances, that becomes headline news. Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing is another debate, but there is no debate around the fact that, this is now reality. Those who manage Caster should have coached her in this regard, that as soon as she starts appearing on Sky Sport, ESPN, BBC, CNN etc., she can forget about privacy. Whatever is newsworthy about her whill be discusssed without any reservation, and not just her running. The world will want to know who her boyfriend is, where did she sleep last night and whether she has smoked dagga before.
Since there is debate and no clarity (even among black South Africans) whether Caster is male or female, it is only fair and just that she be tested. The vast majority of those who say she is female do so on the basis of what Caster, her family and those close to her have said. But almost all black South Africans who have seen pictures of Caster, heard her voice and observed how she moves have said that she indeed appears like a man. It is not her fault that she is the way she is, she did not make herself the way she is, but since she has entered the public arena, registered to compete in public in a female event (and girl she can run) and any average person could have reasonable doubt about her gender without one being called stupid or naive or sexist, it is fair for the entire world that she be tested. As already mentioned these doubts are not only among whites, even blacks who have seen her have indicated that she indeed has very significant male features.
Therefore put the politics aside and look at the facts and issue. Of course one can critisize the IAAF or South African athletics authorities who should have seen this coming and should have been proactive and clarify this matter way in advance. The fact that they are now dealing with is after she won the gold medal might appear to be vindictive.
Caster Semenya must be tested for her gender not necessarily for her to know whether she is male or female, but for the sake of the entire world to close the chapter. Even if the IAAF rules on gender testing are fuzzy, she herself (and those managing her) must welcome and insist on a thorough test to clarify the matter. It is almost like someone who has been accused of a crime but believes in his/her innocence and therefore insists that they be cleared by a court of law. Anything less than that will leave a cloud hanging over one's head for the rest of their lives.
If she doesn't test, the media will not stop to raise the issue and she would not be able to handle the pressue of the public eye and not be able to prepare for future events and this might be the first and last big event she ever participated in.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
South African White Farmers Should Freely Give Back Some Land Urgently
Speaking at the launch of the government's National Comprehensive Rural Development Programme in Giyani (Limpopo) this week on Monday, the South African president Jacob Zuma made a very key statement concerning land. He said, the government would have to investigate "less costly" ways of land acquisition, by talking to all concerned. He admitted that the willing-buyer, willing-seller model did not work. Government will look for a more pragmatic formula to land redistribution, but this formula would not be a "super-profit making" business venture.
In order to understand the implications of these statements one must look at the issue of land distribution in South Africa in light of the what took place in Zimbabwe during the last decade.
The question of land ownership is an emotionally charged one in Africa. European colonialists would remove people from their land and move them to less suitable places in order to make way for white settlers. These forced removals have left huge scars in many African people and this has greatly contributed to the lack of economic development among the black people over the last century. Blacks have always lived from farming and taking away their land disturbed their historic development and took away whatever opportunities they had for economic development. Taking away their land also led to urban migrations which resulted in the growing of informal settlements and squatter camps on the peripheries of the cities.
Forced removals and relocations were equivalent (though to a different scale) to the shipment of black Africans to America as slaves. Colonial settlers made blacks homeless in their own country. The displacement of blacks from their land resulted in the creation of huge farms that were used by whites for farming as well as cattle ranching or the raising of other animals e.g. game farming. This led to a significant growth in the wealth of the whites while the blacks in general became poorer and poorer. The land left to the blacks was often overcrowded and not suitable for any agro-economic activity. Of course it would be simplistic to imply that the poverty among the blacks is solely a result of these forced removals of people from suitable land, but one must also remember that these removals were accompanied by discriminatory policies in education, access to economic opportunities towards the blacks.
In order to understand the implications of these statements one must look at the issue of land distribution in South Africa in light of the what took place in Zimbabwe during the last decade.
The question of land ownership is an emotionally charged one in Africa. European colonialists would remove people from their land and move them to less suitable places in order to make way for white settlers. These forced removals have left huge scars in many African people and this has greatly contributed to the lack of economic development among the black people over the last century. Blacks have always lived from farming and taking away their land disturbed their historic development and took away whatever opportunities they had for economic development. Taking away their land also led to urban migrations which resulted in the growing of informal settlements and squatter camps on the peripheries of the cities.
Forced removals and relocations were equivalent (though to a different scale) to the shipment of black Africans to America as slaves. Colonial settlers made blacks homeless in their own country. The displacement of blacks from their land resulted in the creation of huge farms that were used by whites for farming as well as cattle ranching or the raising of other animals e.g. game farming. This led to a significant growth in the wealth of the whites while the blacks in general became poorer and poorer. The land left to the blacks was often overcrowded and not suitable for any agro-economic activity. Of course it would be simplistic to imply that the poverty among the blacks is solely a result of these forced removals of people from suitable land, but one must also remember that these removals were accompanied by discriminatory policies in education, access to economic opportunities towards the blacks.
If one studies the reasons for many of the liberation struggles against white colonialism in Africa, one notices that the land question was one of if not the key reason for the struggle. When the black majority took over political power in the African countries there was (and still) is a huge expectation on the part of blacks that the new governments resolve the land question by redistributing the land. But of course the decades of colonial rule resulted in the development of a huge commercial farming industry which supplies the nation with food and also produces some for export. These commercial farms were to a great extent built on land that was taken from the blacks. Modern economies need functioning commercial farming both for the feeding of the nation as well as for export. This leads to the black governments finding themselves in a Catch 22 situation because on one side they need the commercial farming , but they also have a moral duty to redistribute the land, revive rural economies, provide opportunities for small scale farmers and ensure that people don't always run to the cities in search of a livelihood.
It is generally agreed that some sort of land redistribution needs to take place not only to try and reverse the historical injustices but also to de-congest some very crowded rural areas as well as create economic opportunities for many rural communities. The challenges has been on how to do it. Modern societies have laws which recognise property rights and rights to own land. Although much of the land in the hands of many white farmers was acquired "illegally" by forcefully taking it away from blacks, the white ownership of this land has been "legalised" in the subsequent years. According the the constitution, the one with the title deeds owns the land. Governments have therefore struggled with the dilemma of respecting the constitutional right of the current land owners as well as trying to rectify the sins of the past. Many African governments have tried to resolve this dilemma by finding money and buying some land from the white farmers for redistribution. The attempt to undo the forced acquisition of land through buying it back from those who took it illegally sounds bizarre, but is seen as a possible solution. However the challenge faced by many African governments is that the "willing-buyer willing-seller" process can and has been and is being abused by the "sellers." Many of them see this as an opportunity to make super-profits, knowing that the government is desperate to get land to resettle poor blacks.
The South African government has recently realised that they don't have enough money to buy enough land for those who need it, but at the same time does not want to take land from the white farmers by force. Everybody knows the outcry that will come from the West if African governments take property from the whites by force. This is President Zuma's concern and hence his remarks about "pragmatic formula to land distribution." There is a great fear that the patience of those waiting for land will run out and the government will not be able to control the results. It is therefore crucial that the white farmers who own vast tracks of land come to the party by giving some of that land to the government for distribution. They have a moral obligation to do that as way of "atoning" for the sins of the past. These sins might have been committed by generations before them but we all carry the burden of the sins of our fathers. Just like modern Germany still bears the burden of the Hitler's 3rd Reich. The gesture of giving back some land must be seen by the white farmers as a necessity for the purpose of creating a more peaceful South Africa. A peaceful South Africa is good for everybody. If whites give back some land they will indeed be investing in their own security and future.
A look at what happened in Zimbabwe reveals what happens when the land question is not resolved properly on the African continent. The white farmers are key to that resolution by being gracious and grateful for the fact that in spite of the historical atrocities perpetrated by the colonial governments the new black governments have chosen to forget the past and work towards racial harmony. In Zimbabwe Robert Mugabe abused the unresolved land question for his own selfish ends and to remain in power. The opposition MDC took the land question and challenged Mugabe that he hadn't resolved it. That made the MDC popular and when Mugabe felt threatened he unleashed violence on the white farmers in order to create terror in the country and oppress any opposing voices. In other words, he took a legitimate issue and abused it for his own selfish purposes. This has made the issue of land in Zimbabwe confusing to many outsiders. On one side they celebrate Mugabe as a champion of the land question in Africa but on the other side they see the destruction he caused to Zimbabwe. When Mugabe started taking farms from white farmers, the white farmers went to the courts to appeal for their rights to be protected. To resolve that, Mugabe replaced the judges with his own judges who danced to his tune and judged in Mugabe's favour. He also changed the laws and created new laws that allowed land to be taken away. Therefore the taking away of land became "lawful." It's like the apartheid government that established laws that prohibited blacks from living in certain areas and then making forced removals "legal." A warped legal system.
It is therefore important that those who own vast pieces of land give up some of it at no charge to the government before the situation is such that all the land gets taken away from them by force. They should not just give up the land, but partner government in settling small scale farmers on this land, provide training for them on how to be effective farmers and create harmony between blacks and white people in South Africa. Doing this would go a long way to show the black majority that the whites realise their obligation to some sort of restitution for the evils of the past. This would also take away a reason the political party in government might think of using to stay in power when they feel that they might lose power through the democratic system. Just like ZANU-PF abused the land issue to maintain its hold on power. If white commercial farmers in Zimbabwe had voluntarily given up some of the land to blacks since 1980, they would have pulled the rug off Mugabe's feet and he wouldn't have had the opportunity to abuse the land question. South African white farmers should learn from Zimbabwe.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
When People Trash Streets and Burn Clinics
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
