With the ongoing Anglican saga let us start right at the beginning. The world church wanted Kunonga to be as critical of Robert Mugabe as Pius Ncube was.
Acrimony in the church grew to a point where Kunonga split from the mainstream church supposedly over homosexuality. However the bedrock of the split was politics with Kunonga being unwanted for being pro-Mugabe at a time when it was very fashionable in the international community to be rabidly anti-Mugabe.
The church does not erase a person's background and tradition. The church does not mask a person core cultural beliefs. Often it is church practices which are profoundly modified by tradition.
Kunonga and Pius Ncube's completely different approaches to critique of Mugabe are rooted in their different cultural and life experience backgrounds.
I am not trying to be tribalist but the first point of divergence on how the two view Mugabe is that Kunonga is a Shona like Mugabe while Pius Ncube is a Ndebele. That has got nothing to do with religion.
Recently Kunonga related how his family's wealth in the form of cattle was several generations ago expropriated without compensation by the white colonialist regime of the time (kuhesvurwa kwemombe dzekwaKunonga). It is obvious that part of his family history affected his outlook towards Mugabe's land reform which involved expropriating land from the descendants of white colonialists without compensation.
On the other hand Pius Ncube outlook towards Mugabe was more likely profoundly fashioned by the Gukurahundi disturbances of the early 1980s.
In their ignorance of all these things, the world church pushed Kunonga a tard too hard. They now wanted him to criticise expropriation of white land without compensation but where were they when his family's cattle were being expropriated without compensation. He lashed back and we now have an irreparably divided congregation.
Personally I am now a secular humanist, atheist and freethinker. This happened long before the Anglican church rucktions so has absolutely nothing to do with them. However my family have been Anglican church goers for generations.
My own grandfather and his brother Gideon Punungwe made contributions to the Anglican Church at St Marks Zimondi in Manyene. That was long before Kunonga and Gandiya's time. Now let's suppose I decide to go back into the church.
As the Anglican church stands now, if I side with Gandiya, Kunonga says I should not be allowed to go into the church that my grandfather helped build. If I side with Kunonga, Gandiya says I should not be allowed to go into the church that my grandfather helped build.
Who are they to tell me that? Both of them are mafikizolos and none of them ever worked with Anglican greats like the late Arthur Shirley Cripps (after whom Cripps Road in Harare is named) like my grandfather did.
Muri vanaani imi Kunonga naGandiya. (Who are you Kunonga and Gandiya). I know that definitely you cannot be men of God as you claim given the way you want to turn church followers into personal militia. Why do you have to force church goers to make a choice over your persons.
If you want to be politicians go and join the MDC and Zanu-PF openly. It is part of the freedom that the liberators of this country fought for that both of you are allowed to join the political party of your choice. Do not use the congregation to achieve your political ends.
The divisions in the Anglican church have nothing to do with godliness or lack of it. They are all about strong combative personalities unwilling to back down even if it means bringing down the church.
I am glad I am a sensible atheist.
Thursday 29 November 2012
Wednesday 21 November 2012
The Primitive Mentality of the Middle East
The world we live in today is full of primitive beliefs that are difficult to comprehend for anyone who prefers to use scientific logic as their guiding thought process.
There is the primitive belief that keratin, the material that makes fingernails, can do the jobs of antibiotics, antifungals, antiparasitics and even sedatives. All you need is a few shavings of it, so goes the theory. This belief has led to more than 500 specimens of an endangered member of Africa's big five, the rhinoceros being butchered for only their horns.
We are left totally perplexed and speechless by the carnage left behind by the primitive Asian belief that rhino horn is powerful muti (medicine) for everything from broken bones to the common cold. I personally am completely dumbfounded the total senselessness, as carcass after carcass of the majestic rhino is left to rot in the African veld.
If keratin has such powerful medicinal qualities, why don't they cut off their own fingers and toes instead of so senselessly and cruelly butchering our rhino.
Of course talk of primitive beliefs can never be complete without mentioning the cabinet of my own country, Zimbabwe, who were prepared to discuss the extraction of pure refined diesel from a granite outcrop in Chinhoyi. I wonder how they were going to tell the ancestors that they want diesel with a sulphur content of 50ppm.
It is a story that could have been easily dismissed as a fanciful urban legend had it not been for widely available pictures of senior government officials being washed with diesel by a school drop-out n'anga (traditional healer).
Perhaps the most deadly primitive belief we are faced with in the world to day is the apothegm that a two state solution is possible in the Middle East. My career is rather ironical in that I was first introduced to computers by the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (at an event called the Afro Arab Computer Camp in Harare in 1988). Twenty years later, I ended up working as a software engineer for a company owned by an Israeli. I have maintained some of interest in the goings on of the middle East for the past two decades.
I like going by simple logic, and my logic tells me that a two state solution will never ever be possible in the middle east. There are only two possible solutions, either a single state with equal rights for all human beings living in it, or genocide of the one group by the other.
In the modern era, the only way forward, is a single state with equal rights for all human beings. In my twenty years of interest in the Middle East, I have never been able to fathom why Israelis and Palestinians choose to remain marooned a couple of millennia in backward history. It simply doesn't fit in with the common sense of a right thinking modern era enlightened person.
A separation based on religion is irrelevant in the modern era where simple humanism is the cornerstone of future morality. A separation based on ethnicity and regional origin is also irrelevant five decades after Yuri Gagarin circumvented the globe in one and a half hours. This is an era when someone born in the Sahara can decide to make a living in Siberia and vice-versa. Either way, one can physically relocated in a couple of days.
To me it is therefore totally illogical and primitive, that religion and ethnicity are the main cause of divisions in the Middle East. Of course we can nit pick over the various other reasons now commonly cited for all the primitive senselessness that goes on in the Middle East. We can cite the occupation, blockage or the rocket firing and go into a chicken and egg debate, not about which comes first, but about which should end first.
However everything has its foundations in the fact that we have mainly Jewish Israelis on the one hand and mainly Muslim Arabs on the other - religion and ethnicity.Would countries like South Africa ever be able to exist if we were to quibble so much over ethnicity and religion.
When will the Middle East come to its senses? And realize one state is the only viable solution.
| There is the primitive belief that keratin, the material that makes fingernails, can do the jobs of antibiotics, antifungals, antiparasitics and even sedatives. |
There is the primitive belief that keratin, the material that makes fingernails, can do the jobs of antibiotics, antifungals, antiparasitics and even sedatives. All you need is a few shavings of it, so goes the theory. This belief has led to more than 500 specimens of an endangered member of Africa's big five, the rhinoceros being butchered for only their horns.
We are left totally perplexed and speechless by the carnage left behind by the primitive Asian belief that rhino horn is powerful muti (medicine) for everything from broken bones to the common cold. I personally am completely dumbfounded the total senselessness, as carcass after carcass of the majestic rhino is left to rot in the African veld.
If keratin has such powerful medicinal qualities, why don't they cut off their own fingers and toes instead of so senselessly and cruelly butchering our rhino.
Of course talk of primitive beliefs can never be complete without mentioning the cabinet of my own country, Zimbabwe, who were prepared to discuss the extraction of pure refined diesel from a granite outcrop in Chinhoyi. I wonder how they were going to tell the ancestors that they want diesel with a sulphur content of 50ppm.
It is a story that could have been easily dismissed as a fanciful urban legend had it not been for widely available pictures of senior government officials being washed with diesel by a school drop-out n'anga (traditional healer).
| Perhaps the most deadly primitive belief we are faced with in the world to day is the apothegm that a two state solution is possible in the Middle East. |
Perhaps the most deadly primitive belief we are faced with in the world to day is the apothegm that a two state solution is possible in the Middle East. My career is rather ironical in that I was first introduced to computers by the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (at an event called the Afro Arab Computer Camp in Harare in 1988). Twenty years later, I ended up working as a software engineer for a company owned by an Israeli. I have maintained some of interest in the goings on of the middle East for the past two decades.
I like going by simple logic, and my logic tells me that a two state solution will never ever be possible in the middle east. There are only two possible solutions, either a single state with equal rights for all human beings living in it, or genocide of the one group by the other.
In the modern era, the only way forward, is a single state with equal rights for all human beings. In my twenty years of interest in the Middle East, I have never been able to fathom why Israelis and Palestinians choose to remain marooned a couple of millennia in backward history. It simply doesn't fit in with the common sense of a right thinking modern era enlightened person.
A separation based on religion is irrelevant in the modern era where simple humanism is the cornerstone of future morality. A separation based on ethnicity and regional origin is also irrelevant five decades after Yuri Gagarin circumvented the globe in one and a half hours. This is an era when someone born in the Sahara can decide to make a living in Siberia and vice-versa. Either way, one can physically relocated in a couple of days.
| When will the Middle East come to its senses? |
To me it is therefore totally illogical and primitive, that religion and ethnicity are the main cause of divisions in the Middle East. Of course we can nit pick over the various other reasons now commonly cited for all the primitive senselessness that goes on in the Middle East. We can cite the occupation, blockage or the rocket firing and go into a chicken and egg debate, not about which comes first, but about which should end first.
However everything has its foundations in the fact that we have mainly Jewish Israelis on the one hand and mainly Muslim Arabs on the other - religion and ethnicity.Would countries like South Africa ever be able to exist if we were to quibble so much over ethnicity and religion.
When will the Middle East come to its senses? And realize one state is the only viable solution.
Monday 19 November 2012
Zimbabwe needs NEW leadership across the board
The leaders of both the ruling AND opposition parties must be changed if Zimbabwe is to stand any chance of progressing.
Both sets of leaders have shown a gluttonous appetite for cronyism, with relatives and friends enjoying first class seats on the gravy train. This massive gravy train has run over the prosperity of the country leaving the welfare of the people in intensive care.
In Zanu-PF gravy train seats have been allocated largely on the basis of the 1970's liberation war credentials. In the MDC the seats have been doled out mostly on personal friendships, and judging by recent reshuffles in his office, by the disposition of Tsvagirai's loins as well.
Hanzi chiuno chaPrime Minister chikachinja zvachinoda, nevanhu vemuOffice make vanochinjawo. If the Prime Minister's loins change what they want then the composition of his office changes too.
Zanu-PF seriously hobbled by failure to renew its leadership. The party has been recycling the same individuals for three decades - and they want to blame the British for the complete stagnation of their fortunes. Can't they see the complete stagnation in their leadership leads to a stagnation of ideas?
Zanu-PF has reduced its leadership to a little more than a remedial class in governance, where people keep trying the same things and failing over and over. Where others like Mandela, Nujoma, Mbeki, Pohamba, Chisano, Muluzi and even Chiluba have come and gone the occupants of the remedial class are going nowhere.
I know Zanu-PF members like to blame the MDC for their misfortunes. The truth is they should be thankful that the MDC too are a bunch of lousy, directionless opportunists. Faced with more principled, astute and competent opposition they would have lost power a long time ago.
On the other side the MDC also like to blame Zanu-PF for all their misfortunes. They too should be thankful to Zanu-PF incompetence, especially in the economic sphere, for their mere existence and longevity. Had Zanu-PF been just a little bit more competent, then the usually apathetic voters would not have flocked to the MDC the way they did.
I was taken back by a speech in which Tsvangirai described the coming 2013 elections as 'the MDC's last chance'. Clearly the man is not thinking beyond himself. How can he describe his last chance to contest the presidential elections as the entire party's last chance.
It means Tsvangirai doesn't have a vision for the party beyond his own political career. This takes us right back to my long standing conviction that the MDC is founded on opportunism. Their leader does not have a vision for the party beyond his own personal opportunity to challenge Mugabe. He does not have principles, ideologies and convictions which he wants to see the party carry forward even beyond his life time.
Surely the MDC needs leadership that has vision beyond personal opportunity. They too need a leadership change if their fortunes are to move from the realm of luck into the realm of strategy.
Maybe I am asking too much of the MDC. It is a hallmark of the majority of African leaders that they do not have a vision of anything beyond themselves. Even Zanu-PF is frozen in a leadership time warp because they scared of contemplating anything beyond Robert Mugabe.
The brandpower of a movement should not lie in a person but in its ideology and its cause. That Tsvangirai is being kept in place largely because the MDC's western backers are scared he will take his brandpower with him, is testimony to the MDC's extremely weak ideological position.
This puts the MDC in a catch 22 situation because they sorely need a leader with more ideological vision if they are to survive beyond 2013.
The bottom line is that both Zanu-PF and their main challengers the MDC, do not have the most suitable leadership for Zimbabwe. The end result is that Zimbabwe is faced with another election term saddled with leadership that has no clear direction or clear ideas on how to take the country forward.
Zanu-PF is saddled with a matakadyakare (leftovers) leadership. The MDC is saddle with a mahandionioni (visionless) leadership. Zimbabwe is saddled with both these parties.
Both sets of leaders have shown a gluttonous appetite for cronyism, with relatives and friends enjoying first class seats on the gravy train. This massive gravy train has run over the prosperity of the country leaving the welfare of the people in intensive care.
In Zanu-PF gravy train seats have been allocated largely on the basis of the 1970's liberation war credentials. In the MDC the seats have been doled out mostly on personal friendships, and judging by recent reshuffles in his office, by the disposition of Tsvagirai's loins as well.
Hanzi chiuno chaPrime Minister chikachinja zvachinoda, nevanhu vemuOffice make vanochinjawo. If the Prime Minister's loins change what they want then the composition of his office changes too.
| Zanu-PF has reduced its leadership to a little more than a remedial class in governance. |
Zanu-PF seriously hobbled by failure to renew its leadership. The party has been recycling the same individuals for three decades - and they want to blame the British for the complete stagnation of their fortunes. Can't they see the complete stagnation in their leadership leads to a stagnation of ideas?
Zanu-PF has reduced its leadership to a little more than a remedial class in governance, where people keep trying the same things and failing over and over. Where others like Mandela, Nujoma, Mbeki, Pohamba, Chisano, Muluzi and even Chiluba have come and gone the occupants of the remedial class are going nowhere.
I know Zanu-PF members like to blame the MDC for their misfortunes. The truth is they should be thankful that the MDC too are a bunch of lousy, directionless opportunists. Faced with more principled, astute and competent opposition they would have lost power a long time ago.
On the other side the MDC also like to blame Zanu-PF for all their misfortunes. They too should be thankful to Zanu-PF incompetence, especially in the economic sphere, for their mere existence and longevity. Had Zanu-PF been just a little bit more competent, then the usually apathetic voters would not have flocked to the MDC the way they did.
I was taken back by a speech in which Tsvangirai described the coming 2013 elections as 'the MDC's last chance'. Clearly the man is not thinking beyond himself. How can he describe his last chance to contest the presidential elections as the entire party's last chance.
| It is a hallmark of the majority of African leaders that they do not have a vision of anything beyond themselves. |
It means Tsvangirai doesn't have a vision for the party beyond his own political career. This takes us right back to my long standing conviction that the MDC is founded on opportunism. Their leader does not have a vision for the party beyond his own personal opportunity to challenge Mugabe. He does not have principles, ideologies and convictions which he wants to see the party carry forward even beyond his life time.
Surely the MDC needs leadership that has vision beyond personal opportunity. They too need a leadership change if their fortunes are to move from the realm of luck into the realm of strategy.
Maybe I am asking too much of the MDC. It is a hallmark of the majority of African leaders that they do not have a vision of anything beyond themselves. Even Zanu-PF is frozen in a leadership time warp because they scared of contemplating anything beyond Robert Mugabe.
| The bottom line is that both Zanu-PF and their main challengers the MDC, do not have the most suitable leadership for Zimbabwe. |
The brandpower of a movement should not lie in a person but in its ideology and its cause. That Tsvangirai is being kept in place largely because the MDC's western backers are scared he will take his brandpower with him, is testimony to the MDC's extremely weak ideological position.
This puts the MDC in a catch 22 situation because they sorely need a leader with more ideological vision if they are to survive beyond 2013.
The bottom line is that both Zanu-PF and their main challengers the MDC, do not have the most suitable leadership for Zimbabwe. The end result is that Zimbabwe is faced with another election term saddled with leadership that has no clear direction or clear ideas on how to take the country forward.
Zanu-PF is saddled with a matakadyakare (leftovers) leadership. The MDC is saddle with a mahandionioni (visionless) leadership. Zimbabwe is saddled with both these parties.
Friday 16 November 2012
Debate on Zimbabwe Land Reform: 1
In the following email I was disputing a statement by Pat Anderson that "Europeans arrived and took land, developed it and large commercial farms appeared."
Already the way you put it is wrong. You talk as if blacks were not capable of developing large commercial mechanized farms. Remember Pat, at the time Europeans came to Zimbabwe in 1890, the Ford Model T had not even been invented so there was no farm mechanization to talk of.
At that time Africans were ahead of whites in terms of agricultural skill. They owned more livestock and they grew better crops. Whites, who were then running away from poverty and disease in Europe, actually relied on black produce in order not to starve. At that time blacks didn't even want to work for whites on mines or on farms which is why whites had to resort to a hated forced labour system called Chibharo (The Rape).
My maternal grandfather had to relocate from Njanja to Manyene in an attempt to get away from the Chibharo system. My grand-uncle Sekuru Madzorera used to tell how he had his hands tied together, tied to a saddle and then made to run behind a horse as he was corralled for the Chibharo system. These are people who I saw with my own eyes and whose stories I heard with my own ears.
Zimbabwe's agriculture developed to world class standards starting around the 1940s, ten years after the Land Apportionment Act robbed blacks of their land. It is a hurtful insult to suggest that blacks at that time couldn't develop advanced agriculture because of incapability. Yet it is very clear that they were forcibly held back by the racist system then in operation.
My own grandfather was one of the first farmers to grow wheat in Mutoro native purchase areas. White farmers used to come and buy wheat from him. He had to abandon the capital intensive crop because of lack of support for blacks from the system as well as plain discrimination such as selective pricing for produce based on race.
Whites could make money by buying produce from blacks at the 'black price' and selling it on at the 'white price.' Those are some of the practices that make whites appear to have been better.
They were not any better but they used violent repression to take the resources for themselves as well as hold back the blacks from the natural course of development.
Once people understand that point they will stop harping about whites having 'developed' Africa or being better farmers, but know that they actually held back Africa by preventing the population from advancing with the rest of the world at their natural pace.
Now Africa is having to start where the world was a century ago. That is not a condemnation of black capabilities but a condemnation of the oppressive system that was saddled upon the blacks.
As usual let me point that my sentiments are not the gospel truth but are based on logical consideration of the plainly apparent facts. Other are free to arrive at their own conclusions. However, as the facts stand, I strongly believe my own conclusions are substantially correct.
Already the way you put it is wrong. You talk as if blacks were not capable of developing large commercial mechanized farms. Remember Pat, at the time Europeans came to Zimbabwe in 1890, the Ford Model T had not even been invented so there was no farm mechanization to talk of.
At that time Africans were ahead of whites in terms of agricultural skill. They owned more livestock and they grew better crops. Whites, who were then running away from poverty and disease in Europe, actually relied on black produce in order not to starve. At that time blacks didn't even want to work for whites on mines or on farms which is why whites had to resort to a hated forced labour system called Chibharo (The Rape).
My maternal grandfather had to relocate from Njanja to Manyene in an attempt to get away from the Chibharo system. My grand-uncle Sekuru Madzorera used to tell how he had his hands tied together, tied to a saddle and then made to run behind a horse as he was corralled for the Chibharo system. These are people who I saw with my own eyes and whose stories I heard with my own ears.
Zimbabwe's agriculture developed to world class standards starting around the 1940s, ten years after the Land Apportionment Act robbed blacks of their land. It is a hurtful insult to suggest that blacks at that time couldn't develop advanced agriculture because of incapability. Yet it is very clear that they were forcibly held back by the racist system then in operation.
My own grandfather was one of the first farmers to grow wheat in Mutoro native purchase areas. White farmers used to come and buy wheat from him. He had to abandon the capital intensive crop because of lack of support for blacks from the system as well as plain discrimination such as selective pricing for produce based on race.
Whites could make money by buying produce from blacks at the 'black price' and selling it on at the 'white price.' Those are some of the practices that make whites appear to have been better.
They were not any better but they used violent repression to take the resources for themselves as well as hold back the blacks from the natural course of development.
Once people understand that point they will stop harping about whites having 'developed' Africa or being better farmers, but know that they actually held back Africa by preventing the population from advancing with the rest of the world at their natural pace.
Now Africa is having to start where the world was a century ago. That is not a condemnation of black capabilities but a condemnation of the oppressive system that was saddled upon the blacks.
As usual let me point that my sentiments are not the gospel truth but are based on logical consideration of the plainly apparent facts. Other are free to arrive at their own conclusions. However, as the facts stand, I strongly believe my own conclusions are substantially correct.
Tuesday 13 November 2012
Open Letter to International MDC Funders
I know many of you hate Robert Mugabe with a passion. This epistle is not about praising Mugabe, but it is going to be critical of one of his rivals. Please lend me an ear.
This epistle is about a man whose qualities we all know are not up to standard. A man whose indecisiveness and lack of self-confidence is legendary.
Morgan Tsvangirai is not the best opposition leader that Zimbabwe could have. Besides his well known name, there is no other quality he exhibits that marks him as a leader. Let me remind you that his ending up as a leader was entirely opportunistic. He just happened to be at the right place at the right time.
Let me also remind you that the place where he was, he was put there by Zanu-PF. He was secretary general of the ZCTU during the years, when the labour movement was hand in glove with Zanu-PF, similar to the relationship between COSATU and the ANC today.
When one thinks back, you begin to get ideas of why Tsvangirai has proved to be so inept as a leader. With a propensity to minimize potential leadership challengers, Robert Mugabe would have endorsed for the ZCTU, a potential source for challenges, a leader least likely to be successful as a challenger. If that was his strategy, then we all have no choice but to add another feather to Mugabe's hat of cunning tricks.
Given the list of unbelievably bad management decisions, Zimbabwe's leadership has been open to any COMPETENT challenger for the past 15 or so years. While many would like to attribute Tsvangirai's inability to unseat Mugabe to dirty tricks, his own lack of strategic vision is the chief culprit. Perhaps that he is the main challenger was actually part of Mugabe's strategic vision.
In short Tsvangirai was a Zanu-PF faithful who saw an opportunity and took it, without any particular passion for a cause. That lack of passion is one of the reasons why the MDC seems so lethargic when it comes to being outfoxed by Zanu-PF.
The reason why Tsvangirai is leading the MDC today is because many of you believe he is the best chance for unseating Robert Mugabe not because he is the best leader for Zimbabwe. I have no doubt that even within his own party, there are many who are more capable than he is.
I also firmly believe that if the natural dynamics of leadership contests had happened without biased financial backing of one man by you, the MDC will have evolved a much better leadership than it has today.
You do not understand our politicians as well as we do. Some of us have been telling you from day one that those guys are after money. Remember also that they are not fools who will throw away the chance to enjoy the money they make, simply for the sake of fighting Zanu-PF. In their quest for your money they will tell you what you want to hear, not what they believe.
You have stuck with Tsvangirai not because he represents the best interests of the nation, but because he has been your best hope of advancing the interests of the white minority on whose behalf you have shown such tremendous interest in Zimbabwe.
Of course you are aware of his naivete, his gullibility and his manipulability. I believe those are exactly the qualities that attract you to him because you believe that once he has the right powers, you can use him to advance your narrow interests. Those interests are in no way guaranteed to be the same as the interests of the majority of Zimbabwe's people.
Given the power you have over the international media, you can always panel beat the message to whatever you want it to be. Like you are panel beating the message in Libya to make it sound positive when it is so, so depressing.
Do not think we haven't noticed how you abandoned the people of Libya to the vagaries of uncontrollable militias once your narrow interests were achieved. Indeed some of us believe that you like such a scenario because it leaves the people of Libya weak and unable to assert their will over their resources.
In the case of Zimbabwe, it is evident that a weak manipulable leader like Tsvangirai will be easier to manipulate and use him to prevent the people of Zimbabwe from asserting their will over their resources.
It also does not escape us that Zimbabwe is a useful testing ground for policies that might also be applicable to South Africa.
Your money is propping up a bunch of politicians merely opposed to Zanu-PF but not necessarily committed to greater democracy. You money is building a small elite that is competing with the Zanu-PF small elite. By encouraging these groups to fight and distract each other from running Zimbabwe, your money is worsening the plight of ordinary Zimbabweans.
In this way, you are part of the problem that Zimbabwe is facing.
This epistle is about a man whose qualities we all know are not up to standard. A man whose indecisiveness and lack of self-confidence is legendary.
Morgan Tsvangirai is not the best opposition leader that Zimbabwe could have. Besides his well known name, there is no other quality he exhibits that marks him as a leader. Let me remind you that his ending up as a leader was entirely opportunistic. He just happened to be at the right place at the right time.
Let me also remind you that the place where he was, he was put there by Zanu-PF. He was secretary general of the ZCTU during the years, when the labour movement was hand in glove with Zanu-PF, similar to the relationship between COSATU and the ANC today.
When one thinks back, you begin to get ideas of why Tsvangirai has proved to be so inept as a leader. With a propensity to minimize potential leadership challengers, Robert Mugabe would have endorsed for the ZCTU, a potential source for challenges, a leader least likely to be successful as a challenger. If that was his strategy, then we all have no choice but to add another feather to Mugabe's hat of cunning tricks.
Given the list of unbelievably bad management decisions, Zimbabwe's leadership has been open to any COMPETENT challenger for the past 15 or so years. While many would like to attribute Tsvangirai's inability to unseat Mugabe to dirty tricks, his own lack of strategic vision is the chief culprit. Perhaps that he is the main challenger was actually part of Mugabe's strategic vision.
In short Tsvangirai was a Zanu-PF faithful who saw an opportunity and took it, without any particular passion for a cause. That lack of passion is one of the reasons why the MDC seems so lethargic when it comes to being outfoxed by Zanu-PF.
The reason why Tsvangirai is leading the MDC today is because many of you believe he is the best chance for unseating Robert Mugabe not because he is the best leader for Zimbabwe. I have no doubt that even within his own party, there are many who are more capable than he is.
I also firmly believe that if the natural dynamics of leadership contests had happened without biased financial backing of one man by you, the MDC will have evolved a much better leadership than it has today.
You do not understand our politicians as well as we do. Some of us have been telling you from day one that those guys are after money. Remember also that they are not fools who will throw away the chance to enjoy the money they make, simply for the sake of fighting Zanu-PF. In their quest for your money they will tell you what you want to hear, not what they believe.
You have stuck with Tsvangirai not because he represents the best interests of the nation, but because he has been your best hope of advancing the interests of the white minority on whose behalf you have shown such tremendous interest in Zimbabwe.
Of course you are aware of his naivete, his gullibility and his manipulability. I believe those are exactly the qualities that attract you to him because you believe that once he has the right powers, you can use him to advance your narrow interests. Those interests are in no way guaranteed to be the same as the interests of the majority of Zimbabwe's people.
Given the power you have over the international media, you can always panel beat the message to whatever you want it to be. Like you are panel beating the message in Libya to make it sound positive when it is so, so depressing.
Do not think we haven't noticed how you abandoned the people of Libya to the vagaries of uncontrollable militias once your narrow interests were achieved. Indeed some of us believe that you like such a scenario because it leaves the people of Libya weak and unable to assert their will over their resources.
In the case of Zimbabwe, it is evident that a weak manipulable leader like Tsvangirai will be easier to manipulate and use him to prevent the people of Zimbabwe from asserting their will over their resources.
It also does not escape us that Zimbabwe is a useful testing ground for policies that might also be applicable to South Africa.
Your money is propping up a bunch of politicians merely opposed to Zanu-PF but not necessarily committed to greater democracy. You money is building a small elite that is competing with the Zanu-PF small elite. By encouraging these groups to fight and distract each other from running Zimbabwe, your money is worsening the plight of ordinary Zimbabweans.
In this way, you are part of the problem that Zimbabwe is facing.
Sunday 4 November 2012
Debating Eddie Cross's Fundamentals for the Future - Property Rights
The debate started with Eddie emphasising the need to pay for the land now. I pointed out to Eddie that if whites had paid for the land right in the beginning when they first took the land, we wouldn't be having any of the problems that we are having now.
In reply Eddie stated 'The Ndebele did not pay for a hectare of land in 1823 when they arrived – they just took what they wanted'. Eddie was clearly suggesting that whites had a right to take what they wanted.
I am very much tempted to simply reply to Eddie, 'so blacks have a right to take what they want now'. However such a retort simply does not paint the correct picture. Land reform can never be couched in terms of who has right to take what they want.
In the first place, Eddie is using entirely the wrong logic. The Ndebele did not massively displace people like whites did. He lives with the evidence of that right there in Bulawayo though he may not know how to recognise it. Most of what is called Matebeleland today is home to the Tonga, the Nambya, the Kalanga, the Tswana and the Venda tribes who up to the time European settlers came, had not been displaced by the Ndebele in any significant way.
What is called Mashonaland today was virtually untouched by Ndebele activities, with only parts of present day Masvingo and Midlands nearer to Bulawayo having suffered raids but not occupation and displacement. Also the area the Ndebele settled was at the boundaries of Shona and Tswana influence which means nobody had any particularly strong claims to it.
Secondly the Ndebele were not discriminatory to the extend that whites were. They incorporated people from neighbouring tribes into their own ranks. Of course like in any society there was classification but there was no absolute bar preventing those incorporated from rising within the society, like the Whites had their absolute colour bar.
In fact most of the people called Ndebele today are descendants of people incorporated from neighbouring tribes which is why their izibongo (totems) match almost one for one with totems used by neighbouring groups including the various groups that later came to be collectively called the Shona.
In contrast with white behaviour, most of the people in Zimbabwe today are not mixed race, simply because whites did their best to prevent inter-racial breeding. Whites did clandestinely father most of the coloured population, because of white men's lust for black women. However they mostly rejected responsibility for their offspring.
Most extended families today easily cut across tribes. I personally have relatives in Victoria Falls, Hwange and Filabusi who tradition requires that I should place ahead of unrelated Shona neighbours from my home district of Chikomba. Perhaps Eddie should have asked for a bit more education from Temba Bassopo-Moyo, who stated in one of his recent posts, that he is of mixed Shona-Nguni heritage. I bet Eddie did not even suspect that, whereas someone like me noticed the detail a long time ago just from looking at his name and surname.
Eddie should also understand that some Ndebele moved to settle within neighbouring communities without the use of violence. In my home district of Chikomba there is the Mpundumani family. As of today they are Shonas, speaking no other language but Shona, and following Shona customs in marriage and burial ceremonies. But they go by the totem Khumalo which, as many know, is the original totem of Mzilikazi himself.
In know this family very well because their grand-grand-matriarch is my maternal grand-grand-aunt. They are descendants of a man who settled in the area and married a local woman. Nobody really knows where that man came from but he said his totem was Khumalo. Even where whites, such as the Portuguese, settled amicably among the locals, they left behind known clans such as the VaNjanja whom I have talked about before.
Once you understand the prevalence of inter-marrying and cross-incorporation, among the various Bantu groups that migrated within the region, you will realise that it is impossible to ever compare any one of the Bantu movements, such as the Mfecane, of which the Ndebele migration was part, to the blatantly exploitative white settler colonialism.
Eddie's sentiments demonstrate that to this day, several centuries after they began colonising Africa, most if not all so called pure whites, are still blithely ignorant of the internal dynamics of the Bantu cultures surrounding them.
In fact whites do not even seem to realise that the Shangaani in south-eastern Zimbabwe and south-western Mozambique and the Ngoni in Southern Malawi also moved northwards as part of the Mfecane process which saw the Ndebele moving northwards.
Whites treated themselves as splendidly superior outsiders, which is why to this today they are still seen by most black communities as outsiders. In fact they still largely treat themselves, today, as splendidly superior outsiders. It is there very own choice, not something forced upon them by blacks. Blacks simply refuse to accept those feelings of splendid superiority to be de facto justified.
On the other hand, the Bantu quickly grow to see each other as locals because they inter-marriage and equality based interaction. Attempts to treat Ndebele as outsiders are usually arise from a narrative told from an incorrect white perspective, such as Eddie is trying to do in the statement above.
As evidence I cite the other Nguni-origin groups the Shangani and the Angoni whom whites show little interest in. Nobody would even realise that they ran away from Tshaka at the same time and for the same reasons as the Ndebele.
If you listen to the way white-influenced people talk today, you would think the Ndebele are less indigenous to Zimbabwe than the Shangaani are, or than the Ngoni are to Malawi. To call Eddie's statement above hogwash, would be an unbecoming insult to the bathwaters of a pig.
Sometimes we Bantu find it difficult to understand white mentality because they even reject their own descendants such as coloureds. In my culture it is total taboo to reject your own child, no matter whom you father them with. Every child is equal no matter what. There is no such think as an illegitimate child in Bantu culture. That is why the most important marker of relationship in Shona culture is paternal totem, not who the mother of the child was.
Eddie further claimed that, 'When my ancestors arrived there were less than 400 000 people living in the country – 90 per cent of it was just empty bush. You cannot undo history. Only build the future for all.'
How many were Eddie's ancestors? Maybe in the low hundreds. If you then base white land claims on numbers, what then gave them the right to claim the entire land ahead of the Bantu given that their numbers were even far fewer than the Bantu whom Eddie claims could not have owned the land because they were so few?
Secondly, what is Eddie's definition of 'empty'. Bearing in mind that the Bantu practised shifting agriculture with migratory animal husbandry practices as well. While the migrations were not annual in this part of Africa, groups shifted from time to time in search of better grazing. These migratory animal husbandry practices are still a source of conflict in some parts of East Africa.
Therefore land that Eddie's wants to define as empty for his ancestors to take, would have been land that was being left to recover for future grazing.
Lastly if the land was empty, how come Eddie's ancestors then found it necessary to forcible move blacks into native reserves and take some of their cattle (kuhesvura mombe) in an effort to limit the amount of land that blacks could use. If the land was empty, like in the Antarctica sense, then Eddie's ancestors could have moved in without ever interfering with the land use of blacks.
However Eddie's ancestors moving in was immediately a source of conflict, the First Chimurenga, the Matebele wars and others. This is a clear demonstration that the land was not empty but was occupied by people who did their best to defend it, despite being badly out-gunned then.
Saturday 3 November 2012
Why Zimbabwe's Economy Can Never Recover
Zimbabweans may be wondering why, no matter how hard they work, the country can never seem to progress. We have rightly earned a reputation for being among the most hard-working people in sub-Saharan Africa. Yet judging by the state of Zimbabwe's economy, our hard work counts for nothing.
The reason is that our politicians have been snoring on the job. They have also been taking us to the cleaners, robbing us dry. They have used the fruits of our hard labour (tax money) as a slush fund for their own luxury and self enrichment.
Perhaps the table and image below can help shed some light on why I conclude that our politicians are robbing us.
They clearly show that Zimbabwe has the tinniest budget (less than 1% of the Russian budget) yet has the highest number of ministers and deputies needing all sorts of perks and luxuries from that budget.
She also has the smallest tax base which means that there is virtually nowhere for a luxurious budget to come from. Zimbabwe's politicians are living completely out of the means of the country.
Country
|
Population
(millions)
|
Budget
(billions)
|
Ministerial Positions
|
People
per position (millions)
|
Budget
per position (billions)
|
Unemployment
|
Tax
Contributors per position
|
USA
|
312
|
3796
|
23
|
13.565
|
165.043
|
9.00%
|
6,172,200
|
UK
|
63
|
1096
|
22
|
2.864
|
49.818
|
8.10%
|
1,315,800
|
Zimbabwe
|
13
|
3.4
|
77
|
0.169
|
0.044
|
95.00%
|
4,200
|
China
|
1345
|
1970
|
35
|
38.429
|
56.286
|
6.50%
|
17,965,400
|
Russia
|
143
|
404
|
21
|
6.810
|
19.238
|
6.60%
|
3,180,000
|
Germany
|
83
|
409
|
16
|
5.188
|
25.563
|
6.00%
|
2,438,100
|
 |
| The size of Zimbabwe's executive relative to its population and budget is simply astronomical |
For simplicity let us take the working age population to be exactly half a country's population. For the United States this means there are 6.783 million people of a working age per cabinet position (13.565 ÷ 2). Of these, 91% are employed (i.e. contributing tax to the national budget). Thus, on average, 6.172 million people are contributing tax towards the budget of each ministry.
In the case of Zimbabwe there are only 84.4 thousand people per ministry of a working age. Of these only 5% are officially employed. This means that 4200 people are contributing towards the budget of each ministry.
There are a number of things that are seriously structurally wrong with Zimbabwe based on the above data. First how can the country with smallest population have the largest number of ministerial posts. Well, we all know the answers – cronyism, political patronage and gravy train seat grabbing.
Secondly how can only 5% of the people be in a position to contribute towards the tax base of the country. I am not Einstein's brother but I can see that there is something seriously, seriously wrong with our tax collection system. Our tax net must have some very large holes that are allowing some really big fish through. This can be due to rampant corruption, simple incompetence by ZIMRA or an incorrectly structured taxation system.
If the 95% 'unemployed' people were truly without an income, there would be mass starvation evidenced by skeletal people all over the country. The truth is that the majority of them have an income which is simply not recorded by the tax system.
Judging the the perpetual traffic jams in Harare, which never used to happen six or so years ago, incomes are healthy enough for much more than 5% of the people to afford cars. If someone can afford a car surely they are gainfully employed and should be paying tax.
Thirdly there is strictly no room for patronage in Zimbabwe. The tax base is simply too small to support the number of political cronies that are being fitted in the cabinet. We are simply trying to run a super-link gonyet (30-wheeler truck) with a scooter engine.
It should therefore surprise nobody that all other services supposed to be funded by tax revenues are in various states of total collapse. The money that is supposed to provide these services, if managed very, very efficiently, is nearly all going towards supporting the political patronage system.
In the above table, Zimbabwe has by far the tiniest budget. Yet it has nearly 4 times as many ministers as the world's leading economies and twice as many ministers as China a country with 1.3 billion people. One of the hot topics in the current constitution making process is devolution, which means increasing the number of administrators for the tiny cash starved population of the country. To me, it simply doesn't make sense.
What this means is that ordinary Zimbabweans, you and I, will never be able to have reasonably comfortable lives unless the patronage system is heavily cut down. In the past I have advocated that Zimbabwe should have no more than 16 ministers. After looking at the above table I think that is still too much. I think we should have only ten or twelve.
The heavy, extravagant perks that are being handed to politicians for merely being politicians need to be eliminated. For the past year I have been trying to sing a 'one minister one car' tune whenever I can. In fact that should be one minister one car for the entire five year term.
The above table was compiled from data that is publicly available on Wikipedia and the CIA World Fact book. Currencies were converted to US dollars at ruling rate of the day in November 2012. If anyone feels that the data is not correct, please feel free to furnish us with your correct version of the data.
Zimbabwe's economy can only recover once our politicians understand that Zimbabwe is a small country with a small income and a tiny tax base, therefore it cannot afford to compete with leading economies in terms of providing perks and luxuries to political leaders.
There is no way that our political leaders can live like British monarchs, American moguls, Russian oligarchs or Saudi princes on the tax base and revenue stream that the country has. Yet that is exactly what they are all trying to do.
Merely changing the politicians from one set to another without fundamentally curtailing the patronage system will not change Zimbabwe's fortunes much.
Yes there might be a slight relief, due to better donor sympathy, but never a permanent improvement. We had a lot of donor sympathy is most of the 1980s but look where we ended up because of the patronage oriented system of governance we fostered.
In the case of Zimbabwe there are only 84.4 thousand people per ministry of a working age. Of these only 5% are officially employed. This means that 4200 people are contributing towards the budget of each ministry.
There are a number of things that are seriously structurally wrong with Zimbabwe based on the above data. First how can the country with smallest population have the largest number of ministerial posts. Well, we all know the answers – cronyism, political patronage and gravy train seat grabbing.
Secondly how can only 5% of the people be in a position to contribute towards the tax base of the country. I am not Einstein's brother but I can see that there is something seriously, seriously wrong with our tax collection system. Our tax net must have some very large holes that are allowing some really big fish through. This can be due to rampant corruption, simple incompetence by ZIMRA or an incorrectly structured taxation system.
If the 95% 'unemployed' people were truly without an income, there would be mass starvation evidenced by skeletal people all over the country. The truth is that the majority of them have an income which is simply not recorded by the tax system.
Judging the the perpetual traffic jams in Harare, which never used to happen six or so years ago, incomes are healthy enough for much more than 5% of the people to afford cars. If someone can afford a car surely they are gainfully employed and should be paying tax.
Thirdly there is strictly no room for patronage in Zimbabwe. The tax base is simply too small to support the number of political cronies that are being fitted in the cabinet. We are simply trying to run a super-link gonyet (30-wheeler truck) with a scooter engine.
It should therefore surprise nobody that all other services supposed to be funded by tax revenues are in various states of total collapse. The money that is supposed to provide these services, if managed very, very efficiently, is nearly all going towards supporting the political patronage system.
In the above table, Zimbabwe has by far the tiniest budget. Yet it has nearly 4 times as many ministers as the world's leading economies and twice as many ministers as China a country with 1.3 billion people. One of the hot topics in the current constitution making process is devolution, which means increasing the number of administrators for the tiny cash starved population of the country. To me, it simply doesn't make sense.
What this means is that ordinary Zimbabweans, you and I, will never be able to have reasonably comfortable lives unless the patronage system is heavily cut down. In the past I have advocated that Zimbabwe should have no more than 16 ministers. After looking at the above table I think that is still too much. I think we should have only ten or twelve.
The heavy, extravagant perks that are being handed to politicians for merely being politicians need to be eliminated. For the past year I have been trying to sing a 'one minister one car' tune whenever I can. In fact that should be one minister one car for the entire five year term.
The above table was compiled from data that is publicly available on Wikipedia and the CIA World Fact book. Currencies were converted to US dollars at ruling rate of the day in November 2012. If anyone feels that the data is not correct, please feel free to furnish us with your correct version of the data.
Zimbabwe's economy can only recover once our politicians understand that Zimbabwe is a small country with a small income and a tiny tax base, therefore it cannot afford to compete with leading economies in terms of providing perks and luxuries to political leaders.
There is no way that our political leaders can live like British monarchs, American moguls, Russian oligarchs or Saudi princes on the tax base and revenue stream that the country has. Yet that is exactly what they are all trying to do.
Merely changing the politicians from one set to another without fundamentally curtailing the patronage system will not change Zimbabwe's fortunes much.
Yes there might be a slight relief, due to better donor sympathy, but never a permanent improvement. We had a lot of donor sympathy is most of the 1980s but look where we ended up because of the patronage oriented system of governance we fostered.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)