Is Obama creating a wilderness and calling it peace?
Is Obama creating a wilderness and calling it peace?
24 September, 2009
The historian Publius Cornelius Tacitus is credited with the quotation, “They make a wilderness, and call it peace”. Assuming that I’m not taking it out of context or using it incorrectly, that quotation often comes to mind when I think of US President Barack Obama’s foreign policy.
I really like Obama. I don’t think he has spent enough time in office for us to fairly define his domestic or foreign policy. I think he is better at his job than his predecessor, and by the end of his tenure, things will be better than at the beginning. That said, a brief look into his recent speech to the United Nations will reveal my concerns.
On the surface of things, it is hard to fault the American president. The broad vision for international relations that he has set out is admirable. The world really would be a better place if everyone took what he said to heart and worked towards that vision. But delve a little deeper into his remarks, and problems emerge.
For instance, Obama said:
On the face of it, I agree. But then, if democracy cannot be imposed from the outside, what’s the story with Iraq? After the WMD argument fell through, I thought the new position was that America had invaded to get rid of a dictator and bring democracy? President Bush certainly pushed that view, and on several occasions Obama has echoed those sentiments. While we’re at it, wasn’t the justification for the continued sanctions against Cuba rooted in its undemocratic nature?
Not only has America been “selective in its promotion of democracy” in the past, it continues to be so at present. So why is the man most able to change that state of affairs speaking as though he is either unaware of them or is a powerless outsider, completely unrelated to the prevailing norms which contradict his stated ideals?
On top of that, I don’t see how anyone can say, “Each country will pursue a path rooted in the culture of its people” in one breath, and then, “There are basic principles that are universal,” in the next. Some principles might seem universal to a society, but how can you possibly determine that the same holds true for others? How can anyone assume that for those whose thinking stems from different cultural roots, the perceived universality of others holds true? How can you negate the right of the existence of thought that is opposed, perhaps even diametrically, to your own? On this matter, both Star Trek (The Next Generation, with Lean-Luc Picard) and Makau Mutua’s book, Human Rights: A Political and Cultural Critique, are extremely instructive.
I wish that were true, I really do. But what about America in Afghanistan? If bombing out the last guys in power, installing your own, and standing by him in an openly fraudulent vote a little while after having castigated Iran for their dubious poll isn’t dominating another nation, what is? If what is often referred to as the “international community” is the North, if the only part of the South that gets a real hearing are the richest nations, and if still there is an attempt to deny the existence of traditional divisions, then surely … Surely the North/South division is obvious?
To cap off my point, Obama also said:
Sort of. The UN Charter’s preamble was written by Jan Smuts, a man who, while comparatively moderate in his views, was a segregationist who was opposed to black South Africans being given the right to vote. The UN itself was founded at a time when in America, the fear was that returning black military personnel would forget their place in the social order of things. This was a good decade before the height of the civil-rights era. The international cooperation of the time excluded the natives of colonies which were still the property of Europe. The architects of international cooperation were really more like the architects of a members-only social club. Were that not the case, the UN today might advance the desires of the majority of its members as opposed to those of its wealthiest.
In exorcising history so that it carries the desired lessons, Obama and his speechwriters convey a beautiful message that is as rooted in reality as your average urban legend. That is where I struggle with this American president. For all that I like and admire about him — and there is plenty of that — I cannot trust the words of someone with such a selective reading of both history and current affairs.
I don’t know what he is making, but what Obama calls peace could be anything at all.
24 September, 2009
The historian Publius Cornelius Tacitus is credited with the quotation, “They make a wilderness, and call it peace”. Assuming that I’m not taking it out of context or using it incorrectly, that quotation often comes to mind when I think of US President Barack Obama’s foreign policy.
I really like Obama. I don’t think he has spent enough time in office for us to fairly define his domestic or foreign policy. I think he is better at his job than his predecessor, and by the end of his tenure, things will be better than at the beginning. That said, a brief look into his recent speech to the United Nations will reveal my concerns.
On the surface of things, it is hard to fault the American president. The broad vision for international relations that he has set out is admirable. The world really would be a better place if everyone took what he said to heart and worked towards that vision. But delve a little deeper into his remarks, and problems emerge.
For instance, Obama said:
Democracy cannot be imposed on any nation from the outside. Each society must search for its own path, and no path is perfect. Each country will pursue a path rooted in the culture of its people, and — in the past — America has too often been selective in its promotion of democracy. But that does not weaken our commitment, it only reinforces it. There are basic principles that are universal; there are certain truths which are self evident — and the United States of America will never waiver in our efforts to stand up for the right of people everywhere to determine their own destiny.
On the face of it, I agree. But then, if democracy cannot be imposed from the outside, what’s the story with Iraq? After the WMD argument fell through, I thought the new position was that America had invaded to get rid of a dictator and bring democracy? President Bush certainly pushed that view, and on several occasions Obama has echoed those sentiments. While we’re at it, wasn’t the justification for the continued sanctions against Cuba rooted in its undemocratic nature?
Not only has America been “selective in its promotion of democracy” in the past, it continues to be so at present. So why is the man most able to change that state of affairs speaking as though he is either unaware of them or is a powerless outsider, completely unrelated to the prevailing norms which contradict his stated ideals?
On top of that, I don’t see how anyone can say, “Each country will pursue a path rooted in the culture of its people” in one breath, and then, “There are basic principles that are universal,” in the next. Some principles might seem universal to a society, but how can you possibly determine that the same holds true for others? How can anyone assume that for those whose thinking stems from different cultural roots, the perceived universality of others holds true? How can you negate the right of the existence of thought that is opposed, perhaps even diametrically, to your own? On this matter, both Star Trek (The Next Generation, with Lean-Luc Picard) and Makau Mutua’s book, Human Rights: A Political and Cultural Critique, are extremely instructive.
No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation … The traditional division between nations of the south and north makes no sense in an interconnected world …
I wish that were true, I really do. But what about America in Afghanistan? If bombing out the last guys in power, installing your own, and standing by him in an openly fraudulent vote a little while after having castigated Iran for their dubious poll isn’t dominating another nation, what is? If what is often referred to as the “international community” is the North, if the only part of the South that gets a real hearing are the richest nations, and if still there is an attempt to deny the existence of traditional divisions, then surely … Surely the North/South division is obvious?
To cap off my point, Obama also said:
The United Nations was built by men and women like Roosevelt from every corner of the world — from Africa and Asia; from Europe to the Americas. These architects of international cooperation had an idealism that was anything but naïve — it was rooted in the hard-earned lessons of war, and the wisdom that nations could advance their interests by acting together instead of splitting apart.
Sort of. The UN Charter’s preamble was written by Jan Smuts, a man who, while comparatively moderate in his views, was a segregationist who was opposed to black South Africans being given the right to vote. The UN itself was founded at a time when in America, the fear was that returning black military personnel would forget their place in the social order of things. This was a good decade before the height of the civil-rights era. The international cooperation of the time excluded the natives of colonies which were still the property of Europe. The architects of international cooperation were really more like the architects of a members-only social club. Were that not the case, the UN today might advance the desires of the majority of its members as opposed to those of its wealthiest.
In exorcising history so that it carries the desired lessons, Obama and his speechwriters convey a beautiful message that is as rooted in reality as your average urban legend. That is where I struggle with this American president. For all that I like and admire about him — and there is plenty of that — I cannot trust the words of someone with such a selective reading of both history and current affairs.
I don’t know what he is making, but what Obama calls peace could be anything at all.
Finding our inner Jonathan Moyo
Finding our inner Jonathan Moyo
11 May, 2009
One of the big mysteries of Zimbabwean politics is the metamorphosis of Prof Jonathan Moyo. A former critic of Robert Mugabe and his party, Moyo suddenly switched allegiances and helped keep Mugabe and Zanu-PF in power. Although there has been plenty of speculation on the subject, why Moyo made the switch is still not known to the public.
Like most people I have no special insight into the personal world of Moyo. That said, the “he did it for the money” theory never sat too well with me. Maybe it’s just naivety but it seems to me that someone of Moyo’s calibre could find ways of earning a good bit of money without resorting to prostitution — and that with a bitter enemy. Having spent a few years in another country and with the benefit of the different perspective that distance brings I’ve arrived at my own theory. One that I think is as important for South Africans as it is for people who have tried to understand the Moyo phenomenon.
Post-colonial states often end up taking one of two cursed roads. The first leads the nation to the depressing, false belief that things cannot get any better than they already are. The apathy that results from that kind of thinking goes some way to explaining the rut that countries like Malawi and Mozambique were stuck in at one stage. The second path leads to a manic striving towards an illusion. This far more dangerous path has led Zimbabwe to its ruin and South Africa seems determined to make the same mistakes.
The illusion is the picture many of us have of what a functioning democracy should look like. We are bombarded daily by so many messages — in the form of advertisements, music, film and television — that lead us to a false picture of the workings of the model society. Worse, we then tend to assume that this model society exists in places like the US and in Europe. When those images are compared to our daily reality, the inevitable results are frustration, disillusionment and contempt. Sometimes perspective is then lost and there is an unhealthy focus on what is wrong and an unhealthy desire to get to a destination that doesn’t exist, all the while ignoring the positive things around us.
I think one day Moyo realised that there was only one country in the world that he could truly call home. Given that fact, I think he decided that it made more sense to work towards building that country up as opposed to destroying it in the name of some utopian vision. He may also have been motivated by other things, including the prospect of making money and accumulating power, but I’m convinced that his primary motivation was the desire to build up his country. The improvements that he has managed to bring about in his constituency go some way towards validating my theory, even if it is all based on speculation.
Right or wrong, my Moyo theory has important implications for South Africa. Yes, as Zapiro will never let us forget, there was “Showergate”. And yes, Jacob Zuma will always have the cloud of financial impropriety hanging over him. Like most people, I have my fair share of criticism of President Zuma. But I don’t think Zuma gets the credit he deserves. Nearly two-thirds of the country decided that they wanted him to lead them. Surely it should be the job of all to work with him as opposed to against him. And I don’t mean that Cope and the DA should suddenly stop being the opposition and join the government and Zuma be declared infallible. But a better balance needs to be reached.
Honestly, I don’t think South Africa appreciates the miracle that is South Africa. An insatiable desire for more and better and faster has led not just to a lack of appreciation of what currently is, but also to more bickering and less engagement.
If Zuma fails, South Africa, and Africa as a whole will fail along with him. Given that fact isn’t the sensible thing, even for those who don’t like him, to work towards his success?
11 May, 2009
One of the big mysteries of Zimbabwean politics is the metamorphosis of Prof Jonathan Moyo. A former critic of Robert Mugabe and his party, Moyo suddenly switched allegiances and helped keep Mugabe and Zanu-PF in power. Although there has been plenty of speculation on the subject, why Moyo made the switch is still not known to the public.
Like most people I have no special insight into the personal world of Moyo. That said, the “he did it for the money” theory never sat too well with me. Maybe it’s just naivety but it seems to me that someone of Moyo’s calibre could find ways of earning a good bit of money without resorting to prostitution — and that with a bitter enemy. Having spent a few years in another country and with the benefit of the different perspective that distance brings I’ve arrived at my own theory. One that I think is as important for South Africans as it is for people who have tried to understand the Moyo phenomenon.
Post-colonial states often end up taking one of two cursed roads. The first leads the nation to the depressing, false belief that things cannot get any better than they already are. The apathy that results from that kind of thinking goes some way to explaining the rut that countries like Malawi and Mozambique were stuck in at one stage. The second path leads to a manic striving towards an illusion. This far more dangerous path has led Zimbabwe to its ruin and South Africa seems determined to make the same mistakes.
The illusion is the picture many of us have of what a functioning democracy should look like. We are bombarded daily by so many messages — in the form of advertisements, music, film and television — that lead us to a false picture of the workings of the model society. Worse, we then tend to assume that this model society exists in places like the US and in Europe. When those images are compared to our daily reality, the inevitable results are frustration, disillusionment and contempt. Sometimes perspective is then lost and there is an unhealthy focus on what is wrong and an unhealthy desire to get to a destination that doesn’t exist, all the while ignoring the positive things around us.
I think one day Moyo realised that there was only one country in the world that he could truly call home. Given that fact, I think he decided that it made more sense to work towards building that country up as opposed to destroying it in the name of some utopian vision. He may also have been motivated by other things, including the prospect of making money and accumulating power, but I’m convinced that his primary motivation was the desire to build up his country. The improvements that he has managed to bring about in his constituency go some way towards validating my theory, even if it is all based on speculation.
Right or wrong, my Moyo theory has important implications for South Africa. Yes, as Zapiro will never let us forget, there was “Showergate”. And yes, Jacob Zuma will always have the cloud of financial impropriety hanging over him. Like most people, I have my fair share of criticism of President Zuma. But I don’t think Zuma gets the credit he deserves. Nearly two-thirds of the country decided that they wanted him to lead them. Surely it should be the job of all to work with him as opposed to against him. And I don’t mean that Cope and the DA should suddenly stop being the opposition and join the government and Zuma be declared infallible. But a better balance needs to be reached.
Honestly, I don’t think South Africa appreciates the miracle that is South Africa. An insatiable desire for more and better and faster has led not just to a lack of appreciation of what currently is, but also to more bickering and less engagement.
If Zuma fails, South Africa, and Africa as a whole will fail along with him. Given that fact isn’t the sensible thing, even for those who don’t like him, to work towards his success?
Africa’s deficit of original thought
Africa’s deficit of original thought
6 March, 2009
In a 1949 essay titled “The Economic Development of Latin America and its Principle Problems”, Argentinean economist Raúl Prebisch challenged the current economic orthodoxy. His contention was that “mainstream” economic thought, promoted by countries that were benefiting at Latin America’s expense, would not lead to that region’s development. Prebisch then went on to develop an alternative school of thought known as Structuralist economics.
Although some of Prebisch’s ideas were later disproved, others have been incorporated into the mainstream study of social sciences. Even more importantly, he helped to lay the foundations for an alternative vision and economic blueprint for Latin America’s development. The lesson from Prebisch that I think is in danger of being lost is that ideas that work in one place do not necessarily work in another. For Prebisch, the development of Western Europe and America was being achieved at Latin America’s expense. As such, instead of blindly accepting theories of development from those places, Prebisch and others encouraged Latin America to come up with its own thinking and ideas.
Prebisch inspired me to track down the contribution of African thought on development. Sadly, the continent is notable for its underdevelopment. It is the focus of the bulk of the workings of the “development industry”. No other continent has as many development NGOs giving aid, conducting research, formulating policy and so forth. Africa also has a good number of solid universities, as well as some very good ones, many of which are staffed by people who could hold their own anywhere in the world. These thinking communities are meant to dwell on society’s problems and offer solutions. A huge problem in their immediate environment is underdevelopment. Why then doesn’t more original thought on development and economics (as well as other social sciences) come from Africa?
There are plenty of esteemed African academics and non-academics who are experts in schools of thought that are already well established. But in terms of new thinking and the formulation of new paradigms of thought on our problems, there is very little that I have come across. That means one of two things is happening. Either our education systems are geared towards training parrots and robots, or, the innovative thinkers are faced with significant obstacles when it comes to being heard. Because life is seldom black and white, the answer is probably that both of the above are at play. Having said that, I think the former is a much more significant factor than the latter.
During my time there, my alma mater, the University of Zimbabwe, produced goodness knows how many chemists, biochemists, microbiologists and pharmacists each year. The country also had a horrific Aids pandemic, but not enough money to be able to sustainably import all the required antiretroviral drugs. By my reckoning, the vast majority of the students I mentioned should have been working on locally produced treatments. That didn’t happen and we, like most of the rest of the continent, ended up buying generic drugs from Indian firms or getting the brand names from NGOs.
One can argue that in order to manufacture antiretroviral drugs, certain levels of industrialisation and other economic factors beyond human capital must first be in place. But I’m not convinced. At some stage, India decided to invest in certain industries as well as in people and they got to a place where they could “bootleg” safe drugs and sell them.
Could it be that while the Indians and Latin Americans have a culture of innovation, we largely haven’t fostered that? In a public talk in Dublin on his latest book, Malcolm Gladwell made an interesting observation. Culture, he claimed, has a greater bearing on the success and failure than is commonly recognised. In his book, Outliers, he gives the example of how the South Korean culture of relating to authority played a role in that country’s disastrous air safety record at one time. When that culture was changed in the cockpit, the country’s air safety record also changed for the better.
I struggle with Gladwell’s reasoning because it comes uncomfortably close to some of the arguments given for promoting racist practices. But looking at Africa’s contribution to economic thought, and specifically, development, I think Gladwell may be onto something. Maybe we have a culture that prefers things that are imported from elsewhere to those developed locally. And maybe that is why those who do innovate and come up with new ideas and ways of thinking are not prominent. Maybe we would rather listen to what someone else has to say than one of our own.
The late Nobel Prize winning economist, Milton Friedman, is quoted as having said,
The sad thing about the bulk of sub-Saharan Africa is that very few of the ideas that are lying around at any given time come from within the region. Perhaps it is time that African institutions of learning stopped seeing themselves as being in the business of “training” people so they can find work in some company or another. Maybe their basic function should be to inspire thinking and alternative solutions to local and regional problems.
6 March, 2009
In a 1949 essay titled “The Economic Development of Latin America and its Principle Problems”, Argentinean economist Raúl Prebisch challenged the current economic orthodoxy. His contention was that “mainstream” economic thought, promoted by countries that were benefiting at Latin America’s expense, would not lead to that region’s development. Prebisch then went on to develop an alternative school of thought known as Structuralist economics.
Although some of Prebisch’s ideas were later disproved, others have been incorporated into the mainstream study of social sciences. Even more importantly, he helped to lay the foundations for an alternative vision and economic blueprint for Latin America’s development. The lesson from Prebisch that I think is in danger of being lost is that ideas that work in one place do not necessarily work in another. For Prebisch, the development of Western Europe and America was being achieved at Latin America’s expense. As such, instead of blindly accepting theories of development from those places, Prebisch and others encouraged Latin America to come up with its own thinking and ideas.
Prebisch inspired me to track down the contribution of African thought on development. Sadly, the continent is notable for its underdevelopment. It is the focus of the bulk of the workings of the “development industry”. No other continent has as many development NGOs giving aid, conducting research, formulating policy and so forth. Africa also has a good number of solid universities, as well as some very good ones, many of which are staffed by people who could hold their own anywhere in the world. These thinking communities are meant to dwell on society’s problems and offer solutions. A huge problem in their immediate environment is underdevelopment. Why then doesn’t more original thought on development and economics (as well as other social sciences) come from Africa?
There are plenty of esteemed African academics and non-academics who are experts in schools of thought that are already well established. But in terms of new thinking and the formulation of new paradigms of thought on our problems, there is very little that I have come across. That means one of two things is happening. Either our education systems are geared towards training parrots and robots, or, the innovative thinkers are faced with significant obstacles when it comes to being heard. Because life is seldom black and white, the answer is probably that both of the above are at play. Having said that, I think the former is a much more significant factor than the latter.
During my time there, my alma mater, the University of Zimbabwe, produced goodness knows how many chemists, biochemists, microbiologists and pharmacists each year. The country also had a horrific Aids pandemic, but not enough money to be able to sustainably import all the required antiretroviral drugs. By my reckoning, the vast majority of the students I mentioned should have been working on locally produced treatments. That didn’t happen and we, like most of the rest of the continent, ended up buying generic drugs from Indian firms or getting the brand names from NGOs.
One can argue that in order to manufacture antiretroviral drugs, certain levels of industrialisation and other economic factors beyond human capital must first be in place. But I’m not convinced. At some stage, India decided to invest in certain industries as well as in people and they got to a place where they could “bootleg” safe drugs and sell them.
Could it be that while the Indians and Latin Americans have a culture of innovation, we largely haven’t fostered that? In a public talk in Dublin on his latest book, Malcolm Gladwell made an interesting observation. Culture, he claimed, has a greater bearing on the success and failure than is commonly recognised. In his book, Outliers, he gives the example of how the South Korean culture of relating to authority played a role in that country’s disastrous air safety record at one time. When that culture was changed in the cockpit, the country’s air safety record also changed for the better.
I struggle with Gladwell’s reasoning because it comes uncomfortably close to some of the arguments given for promoting racist practices. But looking at Africa’s contribution to economic thought, and specifically, development, I think Gladwell may be onto something. Maybe we have a culture that prefers things that are imported from elsewhere to those developed locally. And maybe that is why those who do innovate and come up with new ideas and ways of thinking are not prominent. Maybe we would rather listen to what someone else has to say than one of our own.
The late Nobel Prize winning economist, Milton Friedman, is quoted as having said,
“Only a crisis, real or perceived, produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable.”
The sad thing about the bulk of sub-Saharan Africa is that very few of the ideas that are lying around at any given time come from within the region. Perhaps it is time that African institutions of learning stopped seeing themselves as being in the business of “training” people so they can find work in some company or another. Maybe their basic function should be to inspire thinking and alternative solutions to local and regional problems.
Proof of life, that’s what Tsvangirai needs
Proof of life, that’s what Tsvangirai needs
24 February, 2009
Recent events in Zimbabwe have reminded me of the 2000 Taylor Hackford film Proof of Life. The basic plot has a contractor kidnapped by rebels in a fictional Latin American setting. A negotiator is tasked with ensuring the contractor’s release. During the protracted negotiations, one of the things that the negotiator demands, before any payment can be made, is “proof of life”.
I have a lot of respect for Zimbabwe’s new prime minister, Morgan Tsvangirai. He has made his fair share of political mistakes but he has demonstrated the kind of courage and political leadership that the country has desperately needed. I am also impressed by, and greatly respect the fact that he seems to have no desire to settle political scores. He is obviously not a vindictive man. Based on some of the photographs and video clips, which are in the public domain, one could be excused for forgetting that not too long ago, his new boss, the one with whom he seems very comfortable at times, probably had something to do with him being beaten to near death.
Rather than demand justice and mass arrests, Tsvangirai has called for healing and forgiveness. It would be easy to dismiss this stance as the only option open to a puppet leader. The fact that the security chiefs have had no qualms about publicly displaying their contempt for Tsvangirai and all things MDC add credence to this view. But I am not convinced. I think Tsvangirai is determined to be the adult in a place given to infantile behaviour and do whatever it takes to set Zimbabwe straight. For that, I commend him.
Unfortunately, there is probably quite a bit of truth in the old saying that “the path to hell is paved with good intentions”. It is one thing to take the moral high ground and set a good example but there is a world of difference between that and being duped. The sight of Tsvangirai and Tendai Biti, Zimbabwe’s minister of finance, doing the rounds for whatever financial aid they can get, bears a frightening resemblance to a couple digging their own graves.
The need for emergency food aid into Zimbabwe is obvious to all, as is the need for clean, running water and medicine. But one sometimes gets the feeling that the MDC has emergency and reconstruction aid mixed up. It has to facilitate the dispersal of emergency aid and do all it can for those who have been hit hardest by the country’s implosion. This could be done by a host of transnational emergency aid groups. But before calling for reconstruction aid, before going about the tough business of rebuilding the country, certain things surely have to be in place. There needs to be a type of “proof of life”.
What guarantees does the MDC have that Zanu-PF and the state’s security apparatus will remain true to their commitment to working together? If anyone, MDC rank and file know that Zanu-PF can be unpredictable. How wise then is it to raise funds that could be misappropriated or even used to undermine or crush the opposition in the future?
It seems as though the MDC feels that Zimbabwe’s greatest need is material. It is not. The greatest need is for change in how the country is run and how power is divided. Rather than going on fund-raising expeditions, MDC top brass should be working flat out at changing the country’s governing structures. Unless a new constitution is put in place, which limits the powers of individuals in government as well as the security apparatus, whatever money is donated to Zimbabwe will almost inevitably be siphoned off to a handful of individuals.
Worse still, if there is no change to the way the country is run, it will only be a matter of time before MDC officials blend in and begin to behave in exactly the same way as Zanu-PF people. No-one is incorruptible. Zimbabwe’s political system lends itself to corruption and patronage. If it is not addressed as a matter of prime importance, new members of the government could easily decide that it is better to be on the inside of a flawed system than on the outside, living on crumbs.
For the sake of the idea behind the government of national unity, I hope the MDC doesn’t give way until Zanu-PF give them tangible “proof of life”. Nothing less than a new constitution and the taming of military bosses will do. Otherwise history will repeat itself. Whoever succeeds Mugabe will turn into one just like him and all the suffering that has accompanied MDC’s rise to power will have been in vain.
24 February, 2009
Recent events in Zimbabwe have reminded me of the 2000 Taylor Hackford film Proof of Life. The basic plot has a contractor kidnapped by rebels in a fictional Latin American setting. A negotiator is tasked with ensuring the contractor’s release. During the protracted negotiations, one of the things that the negotiator demands, before any payment can be made, is “proof of life”.
I have a lot of respect for Zimbabwe’s new prime minister, Morgan Tsvangirai. He has made his fair share of political mistakes but he has demonstrated the kind of courage and political leadership that the country has desperately needed. I am also impressed by, and greatly respect the fact that he seems to have no desire to settle political scores. He is obviously not a vindictive man. Based on some of the photographs and video clips, which are in the public domain, one could be excused for forgetting that not too long ago, his new boss, the one with whom he seems very comfortable at times, probably had something to do with him being beaten to near death.
Rather than demand justice and mass arrests, Tsvangirai has called for healing and forgiveness. It would be easy to dismiss this stance as the only option open to a puppet leader. The fact that the security chiefs have had no qualms about publicly displaying their contempt for Tsvangirai and all things MDC add credence to this view. But I am not convinced. I think Tsvangirai is determined to be the adult in a place given to infantile behaviour and do whatever it takes to set Zimbabwe straight. For that, I commend him.
Unfortunately, there is probably quite a bit of truth in the old saying that “the path to hell is paved with good intentions”. It is one thing to take the moral high ground and set a good example but there is a world of difference between that and being duped. The sight of Tsvangirai and Tendai Biti, Zimbabwe’s minister of finance, doing the rounds for whatever financial aid they can get, bears a frightening resemblance to a couple digging their own graves.
The need for emergency food aid into Zimbabwe is obvious to all, as is the need for clean, running water and medicine. But one sometimes gets the feeling that the MDC has emergency and reconstruction aid mixed up. It has to facilitate the dispersal of emergency aid and do all it can for those who have been hit hardest by the country’s implosion. This could be done by a host of transnational emergency aid groups. But before calling for reconstruction aid, before going about the tough business of rebuilding the country, certain things surely have to be in place. There needs to be a type of “proof of life”.
What guarantees does the MDC have that Zanu-PF and the state’s security apparatus will remain true to their commitment to working together? If anyone, MDC rank and file know that Zanu-PF can be unpredictable. How wise then is it to raise funds that could be misappropriated or even used to undermine or crush the opposition in the future?
It seems as though the MDC feels that Zimbabwe’s greatest need is material. It is not. The greatest need is for change in how the country is run and how power is divided. Rather than going on fund-raising expeditions, MDC top brass should be working flat out at changing the country’s governing structures. Unless a new constitution is put in place, which limits the powers of individuals in government as well as the security apparatus, whatever money is donated to Zimbabwe will almost inevitably be siphoned off to a handful of individuals.
Worse still, if there is no change to the way the country is run, it will only be a matter of time before MDC officials blend in and begin to behave in exactly the same way as Zanu-PF people. No-one is incorruptible. Zimbabwe’s political system lends itself to corruption and patronage. If it is not addressed as a matter of prime importance, new members of the government could easily decide that it is better to be on the inside of a flawed system than on the outside, living on crumbs.
For the sake of the idea behind the government of national unity, I hope the MDC doesn’t give way until Zanu-PF give them tangible “proof of life”. Nothing less than a new constitution and the taming of military bosses will do. Otherwise history will repeat itself. Whoever succeeds Mugabe will turn into one just like him and all the suffering that has accompanied MDC’s rise to power will have been in vain.
Mandela: Commodity or icon?
Mandela: Commodity or icon?
16 February, 2009
I remember, as a poor varsity student, begging and borrowing money to visit Cape Town. A former schoolmate who had relocated to that beautiful city invited me to spend the week with him there. After some financial gymnastics, I eventually scraped enough money together to make the trip.
In Cape Town, I decided to make the most of the experience and used the bulk of my money on a tour of Robben Island. It was an important historical site and I thought it might help me make sense of a country full of contradictions. That turned out to be a big mistake.
Perhaps it has since changed. But when I did it, the Robben Island tour had very little to do with an important period in South Africa’s history and development. It was an ego massaging exercise aimed at foreign tourists. It felt like going to watch a film dedicated to the viewer, which leaves you feeling as though you are a central part of the betterment of the world. By the time it was all over I wasn’t sure if I was sick from the boat ride or from what I had witnessed.
From the beginning, tourists were repeatedly thanked for the sanctions their governments had imposed on South Africa. The tour guides kept making it seem as though the people on the boat and then the bus, and by extension their governments, were the sole reason South Africa was a free nation. After that came the commodification of Nelson Mandela.
At every turn his name was evoked. Like some magic charm or deity, he was mentioned as often, it seemed, as possible. His cell and his captivity, during that tour, stopped being symbolic of a brutal system that had finally been overcome. Instead they seemed to be turned into a theme park where, having paid a couple hundred rand, you could get your picture taken over the carcass of an imaginary dragon you had supposedly helped slay. The whole thing was perverse. All I could see was money being churned out of a place that should have been almost sacred.
In my frustration, I asked an elderly tour guide, a former inmate, if what was going on around us was what he had been imprisoned for. Very graciously, he reminded an impetuous young man that reality trumps romanticism. He told me that a commitment to unrealistic ideals was what had led to the destruction of Zimbabwe’s economy. South Africa would not go down that route he explained.
I left Robben Island angry. But I wasn’t angry at those who had built it or those who had incarcerated people I had been brought up to think of as my heroes. I was angry at the fact that those heroes were being treated like commodities. Objects almost, that could endow the buyer with a sense of the heroic too.
As I watched clips of Mandela campaigning with presidential hopeful Jacob Zuma, I was reminded of the Robben Island experience. Was this just another example of the commodification of Mandela? Did some political consultant somewhere calculate that the admiration and support enjoyed by Mandela could just be transferred onto Zuma? Was Madiba seen as a magic cure or whitewash to wipe the slate clean and get all the issues surrounding Zuma removed from view?
In terms of pure politics, it was a brilliant move. How many ANC people are going to desert the party when Mandela still supports its leadership? Without expending too much energy, Cope can be cast as a party of Mbeki supporters, or some other fringe group, which the ANC is better off not having. Zuma’s ANC can be portrayed as a party that embodies Mandela’s ideals.
But surely the likes of Zuma should have to fight for, and win, their own atonement? Otherwise isn’t Mandela in danger of going down the same path as so many heroes of old? Won’t who he really is get lost somewhere along the line and be replaced by some symbol? A symbol that, bearing little resemblance to the man himself, appeals to most consumers for the greatest profit. Worst of all, won’t lessons that should be learnt be lost in the profit-maximising practices of some commercial venture?
16 February, 2009
I remember, as a poor varsity student, begging and borrowing money to visit Cape Town. A former schoolmate who had relocated to that beautiful city invited me to spend the week with him there. After some financial gymnastics, I eventually scraped enough money together to make the trip.
In Cape Town, I decided to make the most of the experience and used the bulk of my money on a tour of Robben Island. It was an important historical site and I thought it might help me make sense of a country full of contradictions. That turned out to be a big mistake.
Perhaps it has since changed. But when I did it, the Robben Island tour had very little to do with an important period in South Africa’s history and development. It was an ego massaging exercise aimed at foreign tourists. It felt like going to watch a film dedicated to the viewer, which leaves you feeling as though you are a central part of the betterment of the world. By the time it was all over I wasn’t sure if I was sick from the boat ride or from what I had witnessed.
From the beginning, tourists were repeatedly thanked for the sanctions their governments had imposed on South Africa. The tour guides kept making it seem as though the people on the boat and then the bus, and by extension their governments, were the sole reason South Africa was a free nation. After that came the commodification of Nelson Mandela.
At every turn his name was evoked. Like some magic charm or deity, he was mentioned as often, it seemed, as possible. His cell and his captivity, during that tour, stopped being symbolic of a brutal system that had finally been overcome. Instead they seemed to be turned into a theme park where, having paid a couple hundred rand, you could get your picture taken over the carcass of an imaginary dragon you had supposedly helped slay. The whole thing was perverse. All I could see was money being churned out of a place that should have been almost sacred.
In my frustration, I asked an elderly tour guide, a former inmate, if what was going on around us was what he had been imprisoned for. Very graciously, he reminded an impetuous young man that reality trumps romanticism. He told me that a commitment to unrealistic ideals was what had led to the destruction of Zimbabwe’s economy. South Africa would not go down that route he explained.
I left Robben Island angry. But I wasn’t angry at those who had built it or those who had incarcerated people I had been brought up to think of as my heroes. I was angry at the fact that those heroes were being treated like commodities. Objects almost, that could endow the buyer with a sense of the heroic too.
As I watched clips of Mandela campaigning with presidential hopeful Jacob Zuma, I was reminded of the Robben Island experience. Was this just another example of the commodification of Mandela? Did some political consultant somewhere calculate that the admiration and support enjoyed by Mandela could just be transferred onto Zuma? Was Madiba seen as a magic cure or whitewash to wipe the slate clean and get all the issues surrounding Zuma removed from view?
In terms of pure politics, it was a brilliant move. How many ANC people are going to desert the party when Mandela still supports its leadership? Without expending too much energy, Cope can be cast as a party of Mbeki supporters, or some other fringe group, which the ANC is better off not having. Zuma’s ANC can be portrayed as a party that embodies Mandela’s ideals.
But surely the likes of Zuma should have to fight for, and win, their own atonement? Otherwise isn’t Mandela in danger of going down the same path as so many heroes of old? Won’t who he really is get lost somewhere along the line and be replaced by some symbol? A symbol that, bearing little resemblance to the man himself, appeals to most consumers for the greatest profit. Worst of all, won’t lessons that should be learnt be lost in the profit-maximising practices of some commercial venture?
Just Not Serious
Just Not Serious
2 February, 2009
Reality television seems to have really caught on. If you look hard enough, you will find a show where someone’s doing something you’re into and is being followed around by a production crew. I’m surprised no-one has come up with a show that gets a dysfunctional family to represent the African continent. The show could be called something like “Just Not Serious”.
Anyone who knows anything about me will tell you that I love my country. Love for my country has developed into a love for my continent. There is no way you can do well for yourself if your neighbourhood has gone to the dogs. Broadly speaking, we share similar roots and cultural backgrounds, and most importantly, most African countries face similar challenges. With that in mind the sensible thing, as far as I can see, is for the continent to work together and face those challenges head on.
This leads me to one of my inspirations for the “Just Not Serious” show. The World Economic Forum has just concluded its yearly meeting in Davos, Switzerland. This non-profit organisation (NGO) gathers the world’s top business leaders, some political heavyweights and a selection of notable intellectuals and other prominent figures. They spend a few days discussing the world’s problems and thinking about the best ways to tackle them. Personally, I don’t like the idea of global affairs being decided, or at the very least, significantly influenced by global elite at a Swiss resort over a weekend. But the world is what it is; a few people have a disproportionate say over the way the affairs of the rest are run.
A bigger problem lies in how African leaders respond to this type of gathering and their response to state of the continent in general. For example, there is an interesting BBC clip of Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga being interviewed at the Davos meeting. Raila Odinga starts off really well saying that “Africa is not an invalid”. He then goes on to speak as though Africa were in fact an invalid. It sounds as though Odinga feels that the only way Africa can move forward is if the rest of the world is benevolent and treats the continent with kid gloves.
It is one thing for Western groups like Oxfam to lobby their governments for better trade practices. This is something that falls within their sphere of influence. Had African governments exhausted all the options within their own influence I could understand the need for Odinga to emulate Oxfam. But as things stand, the habit of our leaders heading off to any international gathering that’s on, hat in hand, is quite frankly embarrassing. I know that there is a significant external component to our problems but the fact that the focus is largely on these rather than on local hindrances to progress and development is problematic.
The Odinga interview reminds me of a conversation I recently had with a Zimbabwean political activist. He told me that he couldn’t stomach the idea of his party in a coalition government. As far as he was concerned, the best thing to do would be to sit it out and wait for things to fall apart completely in Zimbabwe and then come in and pick up the pieces. He then chastised me for being so far away from home. The reason? He was convinced that it was just a matter of time before things turned around and when they did, he warned me that it was only those who were on the ground who would be able to take advantage of the situation for financial gain. I don’t doubt my friend’s patriotism but his priorities are not very clear. I don’t know what comes first for him, political reform or material gain.
When there is talk of a leadership crisis in Africa, it is often framed in an unhelpful way. Usually what is meant is that the leaders are corrupt or incapable. Excessive corruption is only a symptom of an underlying problem. The real leadership crisis is that there are very few figures who inspire us with their vision of the future and plans for how to get there.
As the world goes into what might be the worst recession since the 1930s, solid African leadership is going to be desperately needed. Most international NGOs get significant portions of their funding from their national governments. As their domestic economic situations worsen, many of these governments will decrease the sums of money they give to NGOs. Private donations will also fall as individuals lose their jobs or just become more fearful about the future. As for protectionism, this will almost inevitably rise as governments all over the world do whatever they can to cushion their own. Attending all the conferences in the world won’t change the fact that the primary concern of every government is its own citizens. But who knows? A hostile global economic environment might be the catalyst that speeds up the arrival a new breed of African leader.
Maybe the continent shouldn’t be depicted as a dysfunctional family on realty television after all. A feature-length drama might be a better idea. It could be the story of a family that is torn by strife, horrible luck and all sorts of calamities. Something especially horrible would befall them and all would appear lost but in the nick of time someone stands up and pulls the family together. Things would work out and everyone would live happily ever after.
Disney could produce the film and it would be a hit. All that’s needed is the star. Do any of our current leaders look like they could play the hero?
2 February, 2009
Reality television seems to have really caught on. If you look hard enough, you will find a show where someone’s doing something you’re into and is being followed around by a production crew. I’m surprised no-one has come up with a show that gets a dysfunctional family to represent the African continent. The show could be called something like “Just Not Serious”.
Anyone who knows anything about me will tell you that I love my country. Love for my country has developed into a love for my continent. There is no way you can do well for yourself if your neighbourhood has gone to the dogs. Broadly speaking, we share similar roots and cultural backgrounds, and most importantly, most African countries face similar challenges. With that in mind the sensible thing, as far as I can see, is for the continent to work together and face those challenges head on.
This leads me to one of my inspirations for the “Just Not Serious” show. The World Economic Forum has just concluded its yearly meeting in Davos, Switzerland. This non-profit organisation (NGO) gathers the world’s top business leaders, some political heavyweights and a selection of notable intellectuals and other prominent figures. They spend a few days discussing the world’s problems and thinking about the best ways to tackle them. Personally, I don’t like the idea of global affairs being decided, or at the very least, significantly influenced by global elite at a Swiss resort over a weekend. But the world is what it is; a few people have a disproportionate say over the way the affairs of the rest are run.
A bigger problem lies in how African leaders respond to this type of gathering and their response to state of the continent in general. For example, there is an interesting BBC clip of Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga being interviewed at the Davos meeting. Raila Odinga starts off really well saying that “Africa is not an invalid”. He then goes on to speak as though Africa were in fact an invalid. It sounds as though Odinga feels that the only way Africa can move forward is if the rest of the world is benevolent and treats the continent with kid gloves.
It is one thing for Western groups like Oxfam to lobby their governments for better trade practices. This is something that falls within their sphere of influence. Had African governments exhausted all the options within their own influence I could understand the need for Odinga to emulate Oxfam. But as things stand, the habit of our leaders heading off to any international gathering that’s on, hat in hand, is quite frankly embarrassing. I know that there is a significant external component to our problems but the fact that the focus is largely on these rather than on local hindrances to progress and development is problematic.
The Odinga interview reminds me of a conversation I recently had with a Zimbabwean political activist. He told me that he couldn’t stomach the idea of his party in a coalition government. As far as he was concerned, the best thing to do would be to sit it out and wait for things to fall apart completely in Zimbabwe and then come in and pick up the pieces. He then chastised me for being so far away from home. The reason? He was convinced that it was just a matter of time before things turned around and when they did, he warned me that it was only those who were on the ground who would be able to take advantage of the situation for financial gain. I don’t doubt my friend’s patriotism but his priorities are not very clear. I don’t know what comes first for him, political reform or material gain.
When there is talk of a leadership crisis in Africa, it is often framed in an unhelpful way. Usually what is meant is that the leaders are corrupt or incapable. Excessive corruption is only a symptom of an underlying problem. The real leadership crisis is that there are very few figures who inspire us with their vision of the future and plans for how to get there.
As the world goes into what might be the worst recession since the 1930s, solid African leadership is going to be desperately needed. Most international NGOs get significant portions of their funding from their national governments. As their domestic economic situations worsen, many of these governments will decrease the sums of money they give to NGOs. Private donations will also fall as individuals lose their jobs or just become more fearful about the future. As for protectionism, this will almost inevitably rise as governments all over the world do whatever they can to cushion their own. Attending all the conferences in the world won’t change the fact that the primary concern of every government is its own citizens. But who knows? A hostile global economic environment might be the catalyst that speeds up the arrival a new breed of African leader.
Maybe the continent shouldn’t be depicted as a dysfunctional family on realty television after all. A feature-length drama might be a better idea. It could be the story of a family that is torn by strife, horrible luck and all sorts of calamities. Something especially horrible would befall them and all would appear lost but in the nick of time someone stands up and pulls the family together. Things would work out and everyone would live happily ever after.
Disney could produce the film and it would be a hit. All that’s needed is the star. Do any of our current leaders look like they could play the hero?
The house of hunger
The house of hunger
7 January, 2009
If Princeton economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman is to be believed, 2009 could be a very tricky year. Forget tricky; it has the potential to be an outright disaster. The sad thing is that this financial mess will probably affect weaker economies disproportionately, even though they had the least to do with it’s making.
I can’t to wait to see how African governments respond to this threat. In a perfect world, the African Union (AU) would convene an extraordinary summit early in the year to map out a collective strategy. Petty rivalries would be put aside domestically and between various member states. Armed conflict would be addressed head on and the warring factions forced to swallow bitter medicine and make nice. With everyone fully focused on the issues at hand, the continent would sit at the global table and contribute to the running of the world. This would make a nice change from being on the list of problems to deal with.
Because this is not a perfect world, these things are not likely to happen this year. If the “Great Depression II” that Krugman fears actually materialises, most of the continent will be caught off guard. Doing what? Squabbling over inconsequential issues or fighting over crumbs; food cannot be cultivated while people fight.
This frustrating state of affairs was captured by the late Zimbabwean writer Dambudzo Marechera in his first book, The House of Hunger. This semi-autobiographical work, published in 1978, is a collection of short stories set in pre-independence Rhodesia. Apart from the incredibly honest portrayal of the author and his personal struggles, it also spells out his suspicions of the liberation movement, its leaders, and the prospects for the future. This impolite, almost crass work, is a slap in the face that demands the reader ask difficult questions about the state of the world.
Two particular passages are especially significant with respect to Africa in 2009. The first involves a discussion between the narrator, his mother and his brother. His mother is unhappy because, having sacrificed to put him through school and then university, her son is still, for all intents and purposes, a bum. The brother is not surprised at all. He says to their mother,
The second is similar. The narrator’s father is crushed to death by a train. Reflecting on this, Marechera writes,
The Hose of Hunger is a difficult book to make sense of. But a theme that emerges from its loosely connected series of stories is both a frustration with the inequalities that were present at the time, as well as a skepticism of the future. Marechera rejects quick fix solutions and almost demands that the tough underlying questions be acknowledged and battled with.
Which brings us back to the year’s outlook. The truth is that the global economy is almost incidental. With some exceptions, Africa’s problems will manifest whether or not the American economy tanks. But if it does, maybe the pain that is inflicted will bring into focus the need for things to change. If not, it is only a matter of time before poor South African kids, for example, realise that no matter how hard they try, the system is set against them and neither the ANC nor Cope really cares about them. What is more tragic is that “civil society”, and the privileged classes who get to set the national agenda, couldn’t care less about them either. Most of us, though not usually as honest with ourselves or with others as is Marechera, find “the idea of humanity, the concept of mankind, more attractive than actual human beings.” Were that not the case, fewer of us would wage political battles for our own interests under the guise of seeking the common good. South Africa’s political discourse would be very different. Zimbabwe would have been sorted out years ago (but even if it hadn’t, the media would focus on “the people” rather than Bob and Morgan), and so forth.
I sincerely hope that Krugman’s fears are not realised and the world keeps a safe distance from “Great Depression II”. That said, I’m also aware that, for a large socio-economic bracket, especially on African soil, a depression could come and go without their day-to-day plight changing. Hopefully, this year will see a greater focus on this group of people.
7 January, 2009
If Princeton economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman is to be believed, 2009 could be a very tricky year. Forget tricky; it has the potential to be an outright disaster. The sad thing is that this financial mess will probably affect weaker economies disproportionately, even though they had the least to do with it’s making.
I can’t to wait to see how African governments respond to this threat. In a perfect world, the African Union (AU) would convene an extraordinary summit early in the year to map out a collective strategy. Petty rivalries would be put aside domestically and between various member states. Armed conflict would be addressed head on and the warring factions forced to swallow bitter medicine and make nice. With everyone fully focused on the issues at hand, the continent would sit at the global table and contribute to the running of the world. This would make a nice change from being on the list of problems to deal with.
Because this is not a perfect world, these things are not likely to happen this year. If the “Great Depression II” that Krugman fears actually materialises, most of the continent will be caught off guard. Doing what? Squabbling over inconsequential issues or fighting over crumbs; food cannot be cultivated while people fight.
This frustrating state of affairs was captured by the late Zimbabwean writer Dambudzo Marechera in his first book, The House of Hunger. This semi-autobiographical work, published in 1978, is a collection of short stories set in pre-independence Rhodesia. Apart from the incredibly honest portrayal of the author and his personal struggles, it also spells out his suspicions of the liberation movement, its leaders, and the prospects for the future. This impolite, almost crass work, is a slap in the face that demands the reader ask difficult questions about the state of the world.
Two particular passages are especially significant with respect to Africa in 2009. The first involves a discussion between the narrator, his mother and his brother. His mother is unhappy because, having sacrificed to put him through school and then university, her son is still, for all intents and purposes, a bum. The brother is not surprised at all. He says to their mother,
All you did was starve yourself to send [Marechera] to school while [Ian] Smith made sure that the kind of education he got was exactly what has made him like this [a bum].
The second is similar. The narrator’s father is crushed to death by a train. Reflecting on this, Marechera writes,
The old man died beneath the wheels of the twentieth century. There was nothing left but stains … when the whole length of it was through with eating him. And the same thing is happening to my generation.
The Hose of Hunger is a difficult book to make sense of. But a theme that emerges from its loosely connected series of stories is both a frustration with the inequalities that were present at the time, as well as a skepticism of the future. Marechera rejects quick fix solutions and almost demands that the tough underlying questions be acknowledged and battled with.
Which brings us back to the year’s outlook. The truth is that the global economy is almost incidental. With some exceptions, Africa’s problems will manifest whether or not the American economy tanks. But if it does, maybe the pain that is inflicted will bring into focus the need for things to change. If not, it is only a matter of time before poor South African kids, for example, realise that no matter how hard they try, the system is set against them and neither the ANC nor Cope really cares about them. What is more tragic is that “civil society”, and the privileged classes who get to set the national agenda, couldn’t care less about them either. Most of us, though not usually as honest with ourselves or with others as is Marechera, find “the idea of humanity, the concept of mankind, more attractive than actual human beings.” Were that not the case, fewer of us would wage political battles for our own interests under the guise of seeking the common good. South Africa’s political discourse would be very different. Zimbabwe would have been sorted out years ago (but even if it hadn’t, the media would focus on “the people” rather than Bob and Morgan), and so forth.
I sincerely hope that Krugman’s fears are not realised and the world keeps a safe distance from “Great Depression II”. That said, I’m also aware that, for a large socio-economic bracket, especially on African soil, a depression could come and go without their day-to-day plight changing. Hopefully, this year will see a greater focus on this group of people.
Africa in 2008: A short review
Africa in 2008: A short review
27 December, 2008
It has been said that evaluated experience is the best teacher. Assuming that is true, there is a lot that can be gained from looking back on 2008 and trying to glean whatever lessons experience may have to offer. I live far away, on a small island off the coast of Europe. But even from this distance, a few incidents that took place on African soil made an impression on me.
The year started with absolute insanity in Kenya as neighbours turned on each other because politicians fiddled with the electoral process. It is suspected that both President Mwai Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga, or their people, were involved with vote rigging to varying degrees. Rather than confront their leaders, many people decided to attack those from different tribes. As a result, over a thousand lives were brutally lost and hundreds of thousands were displaced.
How people can allow themselves to be used by megalomaniacs stoking tribal tensions is beyond me. It didn’t just happen in Kenya either. Rebel leader, General Laurent Nkunda, is supposedly subjecting the DRC to yet another conflict as a means of protecting Congolese Tutsi from Hutu militia. While there may be some truth to his claims, at the end of the day, how many people really think that he is anything more than an opportunist with an army trying to win himself a little more power?
On the subject of power, in Zimbabwe, in spite of outright vote rigging and other election irregularities, more votes were cast for Morgan Tsvangirai and the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) than for Robert Mugabe and his party. Because Zimbabwe is Zimbabwe, rather than a change in the political party in office, a wave of violence was unleashed on ordinary people by the nation’s so-called liberators. Nine months later, the country still has no government, people are starving to death, and cholera looks like it is in Zimbabwe to stay.
Also of note this year was the fact that George Clooney seemed to have more to say about Darfur than the African Union (AU). George Clooney, by the way, is neither a citizen of Sudan nor is he a citizen of any of the countries that share a border with Sudan. Why the AU seemed happy to have international activists take the lead on a crisis within their jurisdiction baffles me.
On a positive-ish note, a group of people, tired of President Thabo Mbeki, found a plausible excuse to get rid of him. I think Mbeki performed about as well as anyone could have been expected to in his position, despite his handling of Aids and Zimbabwe. But the fact that he could be recalled shows that South Africa, or the ANC, have the ability to reign in their leaders should they so wish. On a continent where leaders are still too often thought of as patriarchs who must never be questioned, let alone confronted, the Mbeki recalling is cause for optimism. Ironically, some of those who were convinced that Mbeki would be a disaster of a president were even more convinced that Jacob Zuma would be worse.
Zuma, whose singing and dancing caused an uproar, as though there weren’t more important things happening, definitely provided some memorable moments. But outside South Africa, not too many people really cared. They cared even less about a certain Julius Malema. If anything, I cannot understand why an individual so undeserving of any media attention gets so much of it.
To close the year, there was a military coup in Guinea after the president died. What is really sad about this development is that it seems many in that country are hopeful that the military will do a better job than previous administrations.
Based on that small selection, what lessons are there for Africa, going forward? For starters, we seriously need to work on succession. Until the idea that the modern nation state does not belong to any individual, family, political party or tribe is not firmly entrenched, history will repeat itself. Similarly, until Africans across the entire continent — rich, poor, educated, illiterate, male, female, black, brown and white — until all of these realise that it is their continent and it will only ever be what they make of it, history will repeat itself.
Despite the fact that I chose to highlight the things that went wrong on the continent this year, Africa as a whole is making progress. Though it often feels like we take a step back for every two going forward, progress is being made all the same. Hopefully, it will be a little more apparent this time next year.
27 December, 2008
It has been said that evaluated experience is the best teacher. Assuming that is true, there is a lot that can be gained from looking back on 2008 and trying to glean whatever lessons experience may have to offer. I live far away, on a small island off the coast of Europe. But even from this distance, a few incidents that took place on African soil made an impression on me.
The year started with absolute insanity in Kenya as neighbours turned on each other because politicians fiddled with the electoral process. It is suspected that both President Mwai Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga, or their people, were involved with vote rigging to varying degrees. Rather than confront their leaders, many people decided to attack those from different tribes. As a result, over a thousand lives were brutally lost and hundreds of thousands were displaced.
How people can allow themselves to be used by megalomaniacs stoking tribal tensions is beyond me. It didn’t just happen in Kenya either. Rebel leader, General Laurent Nkunda, is supposedly subjecting the DRC to yet another conflict as a means of protecting Congolese Tutsi from Hutu militia. While there may be some truth to his claims, at the end of the day, how many people really think that he is anything more than an opportunist with an army trying to win himself a little more power?
On the subject of power, in Zimbabwe, in spite of outright vote rigging and other election irregularities, more votes were cast for Morgan Tsvangirai and the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) than for Robert Mugabe and his party. Because Zimbabwe is Zimbabwe, rather than a change in the political party in office, a wave of violence was unleashed on ordinary people by the nation’s so-called liberators. Nine months later, the country still has no government, people are starving to death, and cholera looks like it is in Zimbabwe to stay.
Also of note this year was the fact that George Clooney seemed to have more to say about Darfur than the African Union (AU). George Clooney, by the way, is neither a citizen of Sudan nor is he a citizen of any of the countries that share a border with Sudan. Why the AU seemed happy to have international activists take the lead on a crisis within their jurisdiction baffles me.
On a positive-ish note, a group of people, tired of President Thabo Mbeki, found a plausible excuse to get rid of him. I think Mbeki performed about as well as anyone could have been expected to in his position, despite his handling of Aids and Zimbabwe. But the fact that he could be recalled shows that South Africa, or the ANC, have the ability to reign in their leaders should they so wish. On a continent where leaders are still too often thought of as patriarchs who must never be questioned, let alone confronted, the Mbeki recalling is cause for optimism. Ironically, some of those who were convinced that Mbeki would be a disaster of a president were even more convinced that Jacob Zuma would be worse.
Zuma, whose singing and dancing caused an uproar, as though there weren’t more important things happening, definitely provided some memorable moments. But outside South Africa, not too many people really cared. They cared even less about a certain Julius Malema. If anything, I cannot understand why an individual so undeserving of any media attention gets so much of it.
To close the year, there was a military coup in Guinea after the president died. What is really sad about this development is that it seems many in that country are hopeful that the military will do a better job than previous administrations.
Based on that small selection, what lessons are there for Africa, going forward? For starters, we seriously need to work on succession. Until the idea that the modern nation state does not belong to any individual, family, political party or tribe is not firmly entrenched, history will repeat itself. Similarly, until Africans across the entire continent — rich, poor, educated, illiterate, male, female, black, brown and white — until all of these realise that it is their continent and it will only ever be what they make of it, history will repeat itself.
Despite the fact that I chose to highlight the things that went wrong on the continent this year, Africa as a whole is making progress. Though it often feels like we take a step back for every two going forward, progress is being made all the same. Hopefully, it will be a little more apparent this time next year.
Was it worth it?
Was it worth it?
18 December, 2008
I remember giving up on my country a couple of years ago. I remember being really frustrated with the national fixation on Morgan Tsvangirai and Robert Mugabe and not being able to see beyond the struggle that was day to day life. I imagined that there were bigger, more important things happening in the rest of the world and I wanted to dwell on those.
One day, I got my chance, and I took it. Having lived in Europe for two years, I think I am even more frustrated now than I was then. From this distance, the proverb about elephants fighting and the grass being the one that suffers rings especially true. And for the last couple of months, I have asked myself over and over again if the fighting in my country was worth it.
Is Zimbabwe where she is today because Mugabe and his cronies wrecked the country? Partly. The total collapse of the country though, is the result of a conscious decision to bring it to its knees as a means of ridding it of a dictator and his accomplices. Even before the MDC had come to be, the trade unions quickly realised that the only way they could take on the regime and stand a chance of inflicting any sort of damage to it was to hurt the economy. What may have started out as a point proving exercise eventually turned into a death match. I am convinced that had the MDC and Zanu PF come to some sort of understanding years ago, as did Zanu and Zapu in 1988, Zimbabwe would be a relatively stable state today.
Let me be clear, I too advocated for a “let it all fall apart” policy. From my perspective, nothing could be as bad as living in a country where I was not free to raise dissenting opinions for fear of state victimisation. I wanted the right to elect leaders of my own choosing and I wanted my country to be respected internationally. Even now, I don’t think that any of those desires were misplaced. I am just not sure that they were worth going to war.
In his now famous address on the West India Emancipation, Frederick Douglass said:
In all honesty, the people of Zimbabwe did tolerate a fair bit of tyranny from their rulers and it was only natural that a time should come when people said “enough”. Unfortunately, as is so often the case during a fight, all perspective was lost. On both sides, things got so personal that the best interest of the country was completely overshadowed by rage and hate.
For a long time I wondered why Joshua Nkomo sat down and made peace with a monster. In retrospect, I think he did it because he cared more about the plight of his people than about being right, winning, vengence, democracy, people’s civil and political rights, or even justice. I think for him, letting Mugabe “win” was a price worth paying to preserve the lives and hopes of people who would otherwise end up as collateral damage. Nkomo was that rare leader who genuinely put his people first. That quality seems to be in very short supply in Zimbabwean politics today.
As has been said over and over again, it is up to the people of Zimbabwe to find a solution to their problems. Sooner or later, Mugabe’s wishful thinking will become a reality, and the cholera outbreak will be brought under control. Something more interesting or sinister will happen elsewhere and global attention will shift away from the country. The rest of the world will go about finding solutions to their own problems, like the credit crunch, recession, unemployment and so forth. They will lose interest in Bob, and the decision to allow more people to suffer and die will remain in the hands of Zanu PF and the MDC.
Many people have told me that Zimbabweans are cowards for failing to “deal with” Mugabe. Perhaps we are. But if that also means that we cherish the sanctity of human life, then so be it. I only hope that Morgan Tsvangirai and his party prove to be as “cowardly” and do whatever it takes to put an end to the insanity that has overcome my country.
Joshua Nkomo was no fool.
18 December, 2008
I remember giving up on my country a couple of years ago. I remember being really frustrated with the national fixation on Morgan Tsvangirai and Robert Mugabe and not being able to see beyond the struggle that was day to day life. I imagined that there were bigger, more important things happening in the rest of the world and I wanted to dwell on those.
One day, I got my chance, and I took it. Having lived in Europe for two years, I think I am even more frustrated now than I was then. From this distance, the proverb about elephants fighting and the grass being the one that suffers rings especially true. And for the last couple of months, I have asked myself over and over again if the fighting in my country was worth it.
Is Zimbabwe where she is today because Mugabe and his cronies wrecked the country? Partly. The total collapse of the country though, is the result of a conscious decision to bring it to its knees as a means of ridding it of a dictator and his accomplices. Even before the MDC had come to be, the trade unions quickly realised that the only way they could take on the regime and stand a chance of inflicting any sort of damage to it was to hurt the economy. What may have started out as a point proving exercise eventually turned into a death match. I am convinced that had the MDC and Zanu PF come to some sort of understanding years ago, as did Zanu and Zapu in 1988, Zimbabwe would be a relatively stable state today.
Let me be clear, I too advocated for a “let it all fall apart” policy. From my perspective, nothing could be as bad as living in a country where I was not free to raise dissenting opinions for fear of state victimisation. I wanted the right to elect leaders of my own choosing and I wanted my country to be respected internationally. Even now, I don’t think that any of those desires were misplaced. I am just not sure that they were worth going to war.
In his now famous address on the West India Emancipation, Frederick Douglass said:
“Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what a people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong, which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”
In all honesty, the people of Zimbabwe did tolerate a fair bit of tyranny from their rulers and it was only natural that a time should come when people said “enough”. Unfortunately, as is so often the case during a fight, all perspective was lost. On both sides, things got so personal that the best interest of the country was completely overshadowed by rage and hate.
For a long time I wondered why Joshua Nkomo sat down and made peace with a monster. In retrospect, I think he did it because he cared more about the plight of his people than about being right, winning, vengence, democracy, people’s civil and political rights, or even justice. I think for him, letting Mugabe “win” was a price worth paying to preserve the lives and hopes of people who would otherwise end up as collateral damage. Nkomo was that rare leader who genuinely put his people first. That quality seems to be in very short supply in Zimbabwean politics today.
As has been said over and over again, it is up to the people of Zimbabwe to find a solution to their problems. Sooner or later, Mugabe’s wishful thinking will become a reality, and the cholera outbreak will be brought under control. Something more interesting or sinister will happen elsewhere and global attention will shift away from the country. The rest of the world will go about finding solutions to their own problems, like the credit crunch, recession, unemployment and so forth. They will lose interest in Bob, and the decision to allow more people to suffer and die will remain in the hands of Zanu PF and the MDC.
Many people have told me that Zimbabweans are cowards for failing to “deal with” Mugabe. Perhaps we are. But if that also means that we cherish the sanctity of human life, then so be it. I only hope that Morgan Tsvangirai and his party prove to be as “cowardly” and do whatever it takes to put an end to the insanity that has overcome my country.
Joshua Nkomo was no fool.
The trouble with human rights in Africa
The trouble with human rights in Africa
9 December, 2008
The 60th anniversary of the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is as good a time as any to discuss Africa’s standing with respect to those rights.
Koffi Annan once noted that human rights are often treated as some “rich man’s luxury for which Africa is not ready”. Our problems started right at the beginning. The truth is that the concept of human rights as articulated in the UDHR stems from a Western liberal interpretation of what constitutes freedom and how these freedoms should be protected. It has also been argued by many scholars that the framing of those rights was particularly Western. Worse still, at the time of the adoption of the UDHR, only four African countries (including South Africa) were free from colonial rule. So here was this document stating that “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights” at a time when Africa belonged to Europe.
Understandably, there are therefore people who reject the very notion of human rights. However, the result of that position can be seen across the continent today. Look at Robert Mugabe for example. All his denunciations of the “imperialist West” have culminated in a vicious attack on his own people. I am inclined to agree with Rose D’Sa who, over twenty years ago wrote that:
I don’t like the fact that when the abstract notion of human rights was being pinned down on paper, my continent was at best an afterthought. But regardless of who said it, I am convinced that all people should have the “right to life, liberty and security of person”. I think it is long past time for Africa to begin an honest conversation on the basic minimum standards that we demand to have in our nations.
As long as “human rights” remains an abstract concept that ordinary Joe on the street does not talk about with his friends, the idea won’t take root adequately. When Mugabe says things like “we won’t let a court tell us what to do”, or “what human rights did they have when they imprisoned us”, there is a constituency with whom that resonates, which is a tragedy.
What is even more sad is that while relatively few people know about the UDHR, fewer have read it, and fewer still know of the existence of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. This 1981 document represents an attempt by the then Organisation of African Unity (OAU) to articulate an African conception of rights. The fact that this impressive work is virtually unknown outside certain circles just goes to show that most of us don’t take the subject very seriously. It also allows the myth of human rights as a solely Western idea to be perpetuated.
Perhaps the worst idea that exists on the continent is that certain things are so weighty that only the well educated, those in authority or the wealthy could possibly grasp them. As a result of the worst elements of culture mixed with the worst of colonialism, the majority of people do not feel as though they get to contribute to shaping their environment. Instead, they accept things the way they are and do the best they can under the prevailing conditions.
Until that changes, until every Tom, Dick and Harry can take things like the UDHR and the African Charter and make them their own, we won’t move forward. Some other megalomaniac will decide that he or she has the right to set norms and values, and everyone else will just accept it.
I don’t know what civil society the governments of South Africa and other African states have planned for the 60th anniversary of the UDHR. But if those plans don’t include getting a copy of the document to as many literate people as possible, provoking public debate and highlighting the existence of the African Charter, not enough will have been done.
9 December, 2008
The 60th anniversary of the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is as good a time as any to discuss Africa’s standing with respect to those rights.
Koffi Annan once noted that human rights are often treated as some “rich man’s luxury for which Africa is not ready”. Our problems started right at the beginning. The truth is that the concept of human rights as articulated in the UDHR stems from a Western liberal interpretation of what constitutes freedom and how these freedoms should be protected. It has also been argued by many scholars that the framing of those rights was particularly Western. Worse still, at the time of the adoption of the UDHR, only four African countries (including South Africa) were free from colonial rule. So here was this document stating that “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights” at a time when Africa belonged to Europe.
Understandably, there are therefore people who reject the very notion of human rights. However, the result of that position can be seen across the continent today. Look at Robert Mugabe for example. All his denunciations of the “imperialist West” have culminated in a vicious attack on his own people. I am inclined to agree with Rose D’Sa who, over twenty years ago wrote that:
“… although the struggle for human dignity remains universal, it may be argued that the African people have to respond to these challenges in their own way. At the same time, it is pertinent to point out that the enunciation of an ‘African’ conception of human rights has the inherent danger of being capable of abuse, in order to legitimise policy conducive to the interests of ruling elites.”
I don’t like the fact that when the abstract notion of human rights was being pinned down on paper, my continent was at best an afterthought. But regardless of who said it, I am convinced that all people should have the “right to life, liberty and security of person”. I think it is long past time for Africa to begin an honest conversation on the basic minimum standards that we demand to have in our nations.
As long as “human rights” remains an abstract concept that ordinary Joe on the street does not talk about with his friends, the idea won’t take root adequately. When Mugabe says things like “we won’t let a court tell us what to do”, or “what human rights did they have when they imprisoned us”, there is a constituency with whom that resonates, which is a tragedy.
What is even more sad is that while relatively few people know about the UDHR, fewer have read it, and fewer still know of the existence of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. This 1981 document represents an attempt by the then Organisation of African Unity (OAU) to articulate an African conception of rights. The fact that this impressive work is virtually unknown outside certain circles just goes to show that most of us don’t take the subject very seriously. It also allows the myth of human rights as a solely Western idea to be perpetuated.
Perhaps the worst idea that exists on the continent is that certain things are so weighty that only the well educated, those in authority or the wealthy could possibly grasp them. As a result of the worst elements of culture mixed with the worst of colonialism, the majority of people do not feel as though they get to contribute to shaping their environment. Instead, they accept things the way they are and do the best they can under the prevailing conditions.
Until that changes, until every Tom, Dick and Harry can take things like the UDHR and the African Charter and make them their own, we won’t move forward. Some other megalomaniac will decide that he or she has the right to set norms and values, and everyone else will just accept it.
I don’t know what civil society the governments of South Africa and other African states have planned for the 60th anniversary of the UDHR. But if those plans don’t include getting a copy of the document to as many literate people as possible, provoking public debate and highlighting the existence of the African Charter, not enough will have been done.
Obama, Zuma & Mugabe
Obama, Zuma & Mugabe
3 December, 2008
I followed the US presidential election about as closely as anyone living outside the United States could. There were many highs and lows along the way, but in the end, team Obama prevailed.
When it was all over, commentators the world over gushed with praise for the progress America had made. And rightly so. I am convinced that President Obama will turn out to be as good a leader as he was a presidential candidate. I am also convinced that he will improve the lot of millions of Americans.
But neither America, nor the rest of the world, will see the kind of radical “change” that many believe he will usher. The reason is simply this: as important as the office of the president is, US political structure does not give any one person free reign over the country. A serious problem with African politics is the cult of personality that exists. Though the Obama global phenomenon demonstrates that the whole world is partial to big personalities, I think our politics are extreme.
Take South Africa for example. How many people believe that, when president, Nelson Mandela was solely responsible for South Africa’s relatively smooth transition into a representative democracy? How many people thought his exit from active politics would spell the demise of the country’s race relations? And how many are waiting for the massacre that is “bound to happen” the moment that Madiba steps off the public scene, or worse, dies?
The same is true of the Thabo Mbeki and Jacob Zuma saga. Rather than debating the direction and ideology the ANC should pursue, there was a debate on which personality should be at the head of the party. It was as though the ANC were a property and there was a spat over its ownership. To this day, there are plenty of discussions about what sort of leader Jacob Zuma would make as opposed to the direction the country should take. Surely that debate, as well as a debate on the part’s guiding ideology should be at the fore? Think about it.
George W Bush is in danger of going down as one of America’s worst presidents in a very long time. As bad a leader as he may have been, the United States survived eight years of his leadership. Granted, the world is in recession and the US faces massive challenges, but the country has survived worse. Provided South Africa has structures in place to keep the president from overreaching his authority, the country will survive just about any leader.
Better still, if the political parties are staffed with competent people who have an intelligent programme for government and the ability to keep their leader from going too far, the people can have the leader of their choice and the country will survive. It might even do well. So why all the fuss about Zuma? How many public debates and column inches are dedicated each week to questions of political and economic philosophy apart from personalities? Why aren’t there more questions asked about the role of the trade unions moving forward, or the structure of the education and health systems? Note, questions and constructive debates, not lazy criticism. What about South Africa’s foreign affairs policy going forward and the country’s role on the continent? Aren’t these more important than our tendency to become fixated on personalities?
Which brings me to Zimbabwe. So long as the crisis in the country is framed as the result of a madman and his cronies, the next administration will go down the very same path. Zimbabwe is where she is today because the country spent too much time hating or worshipping individuals rather than dealing with real challenges.
At the root of the problem was an acceptance of a system of governance that gave one man absolute power. We then went on to accept all manner of things. We accepted the obvious lie that there had been racial reconciliation and that allowed race to be used to divide the country. We accepted the notion that some tribes were better or worse than others, which again was exploited for political ends. We accepted that black empowerment meant the enrichment of a few individuals. We also accepted the lie that the people who really mattered were the urbanites, even though the majority lived in rural areas. All the while, we praised, then blamed, Robert Mugabe.
Zimbabwe is where she is today largely as a result of a fixation with individuals when there should have been a focus on nation building. The political impasse that exists in the country today is because of an insistence on viewing Mugabe and Tsvangirai as the whole of their parties, rather than just representatives.
The greatest tragedy of post-colonial Africa is the fact the we have not stopped to think about who we are, or want to be. Yet, in the words of John Maynard Keynes,“… the ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed, little else rules the world. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back.
I am sure that the power of vested interests is vastly exaggerated compared with the gradual encroachment of ideas … soon or late, it is ideas, not vested interests, which are dangerous for good and evil.”
3 December, 2008
I followed the US presidential election about as closely as anyone living outside the United States could. There were many highs and lows along the way, but in the end, team Obama prevailed.
When it was all over, commentators the world over gushed with praise for the progress America had made. And rightly so. I am convinced that President Obama will turn out to be as good a leader as he was a presidential candidate. I am also convinced that he will improve the lot of millions of Americans.
But neither America, nor the rest of the world, will see the kind of radical “change” that many believe he will usher. The reason is simply this: as important as the office of the president is, US political structure does not give any one person free reign over the country. A serious problem with African politics is the cult of personality that exists. Though the Obama global phenomenon demonstrates that the whole world is partial to big personalities, I think our politics are extreme.
Take South Africa for example. How many people believe that, when president, Nelson Mandela was solely responsible for South Africa’s relatively smooth transition into a representative democracy? How many people thought his exit from active politics would spell the demise of the country’s race relations? And how many are waiting for the massacre that is “bound to happen” the moment that Madiba steps off the public scene, or worse, dies?
The same is true of the Thabo Mbeki and Jacob Zuma saga. Rather than debating the direction and ideology the ANC should pursue, there was a debate on which personality should be at the head of the party. It was as though the ANC were a property and there was a spat over its ownership. To this day, there are plenty of discussions about what sort of leader Jacob Zuma would make as opposed to the direction the country should take. Surely that debate, as well as a debate on the part’s guiding ideology should be at the fore? Think about it.
George W Bush is in danger of going down as one of America’s worst presidents in a very long time. As bad a leader as he may have been, the United States survived eight years of his leadership. Granted, the world is in recession and the US faces massive challenges, but the country has survived worse. Provided South Africa has structures in place to keep the president from overreaching his authority, the country will survive just about any leader.
Better still, if the political parties are staffed with competent people who have an intelligent programme for government and the ability to keep their leader from going too far, the people can have the leader of their choice and the country will survive. It might even do well. So why all the fuss about Zuma? How many public debates and column inches are dedicated each week to questions of political and economic philosophy apart from personalities? Why aren’t there more questions asked about the role of the trade unions moving forward, or the structure of the education and health systems? Note, questions and constructive debates, not lazy criticism. What about South Africa’s foreign affairs policy going forward and the country’s role on the continent? Aren’t these more important than our tendency to become fixated on personalities?
Which brings me to Zimbabwe. So long as the crisis in the country is framed as the result of a madman and his cronies, the next administration will go down the very same path. Zimbabwe is where she is today because the country spent too much time hating or worshipping individuals rather than dealing with real challenges.
At the root of the problem was an acceptance of a system of governance that gave one man absolute power. We then went on to accept all manner of things. We accepted the obvious lie that there had been racial reconciliation and that allowed race to be used to divide the country. We accepted the notion that some tribes were better or worse than others, which again was exploited for political ends. We accepted that black empowerment meant the enrichment of a few individuals. We also accepted the lie that the people who really mattered were the urbanites, even though the majority lived in rural areas. All the while, we praised, then blamed, Robert Mugabe.
Zimbabwe is where she is today largely as a result of a fixation with individuals when there should have been a focus on nation building. The political impasse that exists in the country today is because of an insistence on viewing Mugabe and Tsvangirai as the whole of their parties, rather than just representatives.
The greatest tragedy of post-colonial Africa is the fact the we have not stopped to think about who we are, or want to be. Yet, in the words of John Maynard Keynes,“… the ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed, little else rules the world. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back.
I am sure that the power of vested interests is vastly exaggerated compared with the gradual encroachment of ideas … soon or late, it is ideas, not vested interests, which are dangerous for good and evil.”