http://www.newzimbabwe.com/news-6095-No+pure+truth+on+Great+Zim+historian/news.aspx
Clearly Professor Sabelo Gatsheni-Ndlovu is ignorant about the subject he is talking about. How can he talk about Karanga vs Rozvi or Venda vs Kalanga as if these are separate and clearly defined entities. Talking about Karanga vs Rozvi is like talking about Coloureds in terms of Black
vs White. Can the Professor tell us who are the true ancestors of Coloureds, Whites or Blacks?
Today's Karanga have among them the descendants of the Rozvi. It is also clear that the Venda have strong and clear ethnic links to the people now called Shona. There is no doubt that they have among them large numbers of descendants of the VaRozvi. The same applies to the Kalanga and definitely to the Ndebele as well given the prevalence of the surname Moyo among the Ndebele.
About four years ago in Naboom I was served by a bank teller with the surname Chikanya. She was a Venda and had never been to Zimbabwe. While doing a project
for Tansnet in Pretoria my contact person was named Tendamudzimu Matshatshi (or is it Machachi). She was a Venda.
The Professor is guilty of the assumption that the Shona have a very narrow and easily identifiable ethnic source much like the Ndebele. The truth is that the Shona are a conglomeration of many different ethnicities with a history going back a millennia not a mere century.
During that millennia some people have moved into the region and been assimilated into the Shona culture such as the vaNjanja who are descendants of Portuguese traders. Others have moved out of the region and became assimilated into other cultures. In Malawi I met a man with the surname Shumba whose clan had been in Northern Malawi for so many generations that they didn't recall exactly where they came from but he claimed they had links to Zimbabwe.
Such movement happened frequently in Bantu history and a recent example is the Mfecane
which resulted in the scattering of various Nguni clans. The Ngoni are now in Malawi and have become Chewa speakers. The Shangaani are now in Mozambique and Zimbabwe and the Ndebele are now in South Africa and Zimbabwe very far away from Zulu territory.
The Mfecane happened at the same time as the infiltration of Africa by European settlers who had writing and record keeping skills which is why it is relatively well recorded. Other movements have not been so well recorded.
Though versions have survived through folklore, these are not accurate and detailed.
Therefore the truth is that some of the descendants of the builders of Great Zimbabwe are
to be found among the people called Shona today while some have moved and are to be found among surrounding cultures. The VaRozvi go by
the totem Moyondizvo. These people largely went by the isbongo Moyo when they were assimilated into Ndebele culture.
It is therefore quite possible that Jonathan Moyo today called a Ndebele may have the same ancestors as my great-grand-uncles the Mupfururirwas of Chivhu who are Moyondizvo and are today called Shonas, or even the Mushores found in Hurungwe who are also Moyondizvo.
The questions then becomes whether Jonathan Moyo should claim that the Ndebele built Great Zimbabwe because he is now a Ndebele or the Mupfururirwas should now claim that only the Shona built Great Zimbabwe since they are now called Shonas.
On the other hand my own clan, the vaBarwe are also now called Shonas like the Mupfururirwas, but Barwe folklore clearly states that we originated from around Sena in Mozambique and does not lay claim to
construction of Great Zimbabwe. My village or origin Punungwe village at Wazvaremhaka in Chivhu now lies next to the Mupfururirwa village, while Jonathan Moyo's village of origin in Tsholotsho is a journey
of many days away from Mupfururirwa village. He does not even natively speak the same language as the Mupfururirwa's anymore.
It is wrong to deny either the Mupfururirwa's their heritage and credit it to the Khumalos because they are now considered closer to Jonathan Moyo, or to deny Jonathan Moyo his heritage and credit it to us Punungwes because we now live next door to the Mupfururirwas.
Therefore the notion of 'contestation' of 'ownership' of the Great Zimbabwe monument among the various ethnicities now found in the region is entirely
pointless and those who are partaking in it will keep going around in circles, and have as much chance of success as a dog has of catching its
tail.
That notion is propagated by mentally colonised people who seek to write history in exclusionist terms the same way colonialists did for reasons of racism and discrimination. Colonial historians sought to exclude blacks from the Great Zimbabwe heritage for reasons of their own bigotry and racism. I therefore fail to understand why blacks would partake in the same exercise.
It is like trying to find out who are the true Romans, the Italians or the Spanish. Italians have among them people who were not Romans and Spanish have among them people who were Romans.
The descendants of the people who built Great Zimbabwe are to be found among the Shona, the Ndebele, the Venda, the Kalanga the Nambya and the many other ethnicities in the region. At the same time among those ethnicities are to be found millions of people whose ancestors had nothing to do with the construction of the monument.
Yes it is true the people who live around the monument are today called Shona and
indeed the name Zimbabwe itself comes from the Shona language. That means the monument is always going to be identified with the Shona more than anyone else. Let us not forget that even the name Shona itself is a very recent creation.
Classical Shona tradition readily recognises the ethnic diversity of the people. If one mentions the name Ncube at a Shona gathering several voices will quickly say 'ndiSoko Murehwa ivavo' clearly implying and accepting that the Ncubes who are Ndebeles are closely related to Murehwa people.
When I introduced a friend and business colleague, Steve Mpofu, to my mother a muHera of the Mhofu totem she quickly told me 'ndiSekuru vako ivavo'. (He is your uncle.) This is in line with the Shona practice of identifying close relations by totem even across tribal lines, rather than by ethnic name as most people tend to do. This is a clearly acknowledgement that blood relations, people with common ancestors
to oneself, may be found in other tribes and not only among the people of the same tribe as oneself.
In short people who say the Shona claim the Great Zimbabwe monument for themselves do not understand this aspect of Shona culture which clearly is inclusionist. The Shona acknowledge that vaRozvi built great
Zimbabwe and at the same time will readily call Jonathan Moyo a muRozvi because of his totem although ethnically he is now called a Ndebele. At the same time Shona people like myself who are not vaRozvi will never claim to be such, or claim association with the builders of Great Zimbabwe.
People like Professor Sabelo Gatsheni-Ndlovu have exclusionist outlook, that seeks to exclude certain groups first from among themselves and then from
some aspects of Bantu heritage. They may also be suffering from tribal malaise which does not like to see anything good credited to the Shona.
In short the Great Zimbabwe monument belongs to all of us in the region. After all we are all Bantu people, and the evidence is clear that the ruins were built by the Bantu. Whether those Bantu are now Ndebele, Shona, Venda, Kalanga or whatever you like to call them they are still Bantu.
Wednesday, 21 September 2011
The Indian envoy should be expelled
The Indian envoy should be expelled, fulstop. His ignorance of Shona culture and traditions does not amount to the absence of such traditions.
I also wonder exactly on what facts he bases his assessment that the Shona people are quiescent and undemanding. Who fought the first Chimurenga. Which war against colonialism was fiercer than the second Chimurenga.
The envoy's regurgitating of Rhodesian misrepresentations is an insult to us the people of Zimbabwe.
Did the envoy ever bother to listen to Zimbabwean programs like ChiKristu neTsika or Madzinza eZimbabwe which was presented by the fomer minister of education Mr Chigwedere and the late Boniface Gabarinocheka Dzvova.
If the Indian envoy is so convinced that the Shona have no history and culture then can he explain to us what the Munhumutapa Empire, Rozvi Empire, Great Zimbabwe civilisation, Torwa Empire and Barwe Empires were all about?
If the envoy is ignorant of Shona culture and history he should keep quiet rather than try to pass off insults and misrepresentations as facts. Especially if these are misrepresentations by our oppressors the Rhodesians who spent generations trying to prove that a white race built Great Zimbabwe and threw away crucial archaeological evidence calling it 'the filth of Bantu habitation' when in fact it was the proof of Bantu construction of the monument.
In fact Shona is the most widely spoken native Bantu language and the seventh most widely spoken native language in Africa. Such demographics certainly are not evidence of a lack of culture.
The ambassador's confusion may be stemming from the fact that he is trying to attribute the Shona to a single ethnic source. Let him be informed that Shona culture is a very large collection of cultures united by a common history and close geography but not by a single ethnic source.
This fact is recognised by the Shona themselves who identify themselves by clans such as vaHera (giving their name to Buhera), vaNjanja, maUngwe, vaRozvi, vaBarwe, vaTsunga, vaRemba and so on. Karanga, Zezuru, Korekore, Manyika and Ndau are language dialects and not definers of ethnicity, another common misunderstanding about Shona ethnicity.
Indeed that the Shona have a diverse background is commonly acknowledged. The Shona are not the descendants of a single tribe but a collection of tribes and peoples who moved into the region over a millenia. For example vaNjanja (vazungu vemachira machena) are commonly acknowledged to be descendants of Portuguese traders and this evidenced by their clan praise name Sinyoro which is a derivative of Senor.
Other Shona clans such as vaHera are thought to be descendants of Arab and Indian traders who plied the Indian Ocean coast with their dows long before Vasco da Gama was guided to India by an Arab or Indian guide. Other clans such as the vaTsunga have folklore which openly acknowledges that they came from north of the Zambezi. Vakarova mvura netsvimbo ikazaruka.
My own clan the vaBarwe are often referred to as maSena because we are said to have come from around Sena is Mozambique. Clans such as my clan, the vaNjanja and vaHera who are relatively recent arrivals in the region have no hand and have never claimed to have any hand in the construction of Great Zimbabwe.
Other clans such as vaRozvi have a much longer history in the region and I have no reason to doubt that they had a hand in the construction of Great Zimbabwe.
What there is absolutely no doubt about is that some of the descendants of those who built Great Zimbabwe are to be found among the people called the Shona today. Due to migration and assimilation, some are certainly found in neighbouring cultures. Nobody has ever claimed, certainly not us the Shona, that all the people now called Shona are descendants of the builders of great Zimbabwe, or that those known by other names never had a hand in it.
That misconception is often carried by people who underestimate misunderstand the size of the monolith called Shona culture. We are a very large group who even differ in physical characteristics ranging from tall dark people like the vaRozvi (mostly Karanga speakers), light skinned people like vaHera, short people like vaManyika, slight people like maKorekore. Most of us Shona can easily tell another Shona's clan or origin from their appearance and the moment they speak the first few Shona words.
We are also known by surrounding African tribes for stubbornly sticking to our traditions. Indeed some say we have a reputation of being very difficult to deal with in marriages and other traditional ceremonies, if things are not done as per our clan traditions.
Certainly we are not docile. We simply do not jump to agendas set by others.
When we do choose to put up a fight you can guaranteed that it will be ferocious and accompanied by cunning and deviousness. Cecil John Rhodes is said to have referred to the Shona as 'peace-loving but cunning' people. That is about the only thing he was right about.
I also wonder exactly on what facts he bases his assessment that the Shona people are quiescent and undemanding. Who fought the first Chimurenga. Which war against colonialism was fiercer than the second Chimurenga.
The envoy's regurgitating of Rhodesian misrepresentations is an insult to us the people of Zimbabwe.
Did the envoy ever bother to listen to Zimbabwean programs like ChiKristu neTsika or Madzinza eZimbabwe which was presented by the fomer minister of education Mr Chigwedere and the late Boniface Gabarinocheka Dzvova.
If the Indian envoy is so convinced that the Shona have no history and culture then can he explain to us what the Munhumutapa Empire, Rozvi Empire, Great Zimbabwe civilisation, Torwa Empire and Barwe Empires were all about?
If the envoy is ignorant of Shona culture and history he should keep quiet rather than try to pass off insults and misrepresentations as facts. Especially if these are misrepresentations by our oppressors the Rhodesians who spent generations trying to prove that a white race built Great Zimbabwe and threw away crucial archaeological evidence calling it 'the filth of Bantu habitation' when in fact it was the proof of Bantu construction of the monument.
In fact Shona is the most widely spoken native Bantu language and the seventh most widely spoken native language in Africa. Such demographics certainly are not evidence of a lack of culture.
The ambassador's confusion may be stemming from the fact that he is trying to attribute the Shona to a single ethnic source. Let him be informed that Shona culture is a very large collection of cultures united by a common history and close geography but not by a single ethnic source.
This fact is recognised by the Shona themselves who identify themselves by clans such as vaHera (giving their name to Buhera), vaNjanja, maUngwe, vaRozvi, vaBarwe, vaTsunga, vaRemba and so on. Karanga, Zezuru, Korekore, Manyika and Ndau are language dialects and not definers of ethnicity, another common misunderstanding about Shona ethnicity.
Indeed that the Shona have a diverse background is commonly acknowledged. The Shona are not the descendants of a single tribe but a collection of tribes and peoples who moved into the region over a millenia. For example vaNjanja (vazungu vemachira machena) are commonly acknowledged to be descendants of Portuguese traders and this evidenced by their clan praise name Sinyoro which is a derivative of Senor.
Other Shona clans such as vaHera are thought to be descendants of Arab and Indian traders who plied the Indian Ocean coast with their dows long before Vasco da Gama was guided to India by an Arab or Indian guide. Other clans such as the vaTsunga have folklore which openly acknowledges that they came from north of the Zambezi. Vakarova mvura netsvimbo ikazaruka.
My own clan the vaBarwe are often referred to as maSena because we are said to have come from around Sena is Mozambique. Clans such as my clan, the vaNjanja and vaHera who are relatively recent arrivals in the region have no hand and have never claimed to have any hand in the construction of Great Zimbabwe.
Other clans such as vaRozvi have a much longer history in the region and I have no reason to doubt that they had a hand in the construction of Great Zimbabwe.
What there is absolutely no doubt about is that some of the descendants of those who built Great Zimbabwe are to be found among the people called the Shona today. Due to migration and assimilation, some are certainly found in neighbouring cultures. Nobody has ever claimed, certainly not us the Shona, that all the people now called Shona are descendants of the builders of great Zimbabwe, or that those known by other names never had a hand in it.
That misconception is often carried by people who underestimate misunderstand the size of the monolith called Shona culture. We are a very large group who even differ in physical characteristics ranging from tall dark people like the vaRozvi (mostly Karanga speakers), light skinned people like vaHera, short people like vaManyika, slight people like maKorekore. Most of us Shona can easily tell another Shona's clan or origin from their appearance and the moment they speak the first few Shona words.
We are also known by surrounding African tribes for stubbornly sticking to our traditions. Indeed some say we have a reputation of being very difficult to deal with in marriages and other traditional ceremonies, if things are not done as per our clan traditions.
Certainly we are not docile. We simply do not jump to agendas set by others.
When we do choose to put up a fight you can guaranteed that it will be ferocious and accompanied by cunning and deviousness. Cecil John Rhodes is said to have referred to the Shona as 'peace-loving but cunning' people. That is about the only thing he was right about.
Sunday, 11 September 2011
US Diplomacy in the wake of Wikileaks?
Ambassador Ray Charles recently remarked that he had a writing quota of 1000 words a day. It seems US diplomats have an addiction to pens (err keyboards) and will write anything to fulfil their quotas.
They will write reports about anything and everything. The unpleasant side effect of this excessive report writing is that people who thought they were in informal meetings with US officials, have been surprised to find their names popping up in the formal US reports released by Wikileaks.
A Thai diplomat complained that an informal lunch meeting with a US official several years ago meant that his name appeared in a formal US report.
One wonders whether US diplomats should now be treated like lepers. Avoid them in case your name ends popping up where you don't want it to pop up.
Secondly I don't understand the logic of meeting people informally when they are not prepared to meet some of them formally. Take for example Zimbabwe's case. Over the years US diplomats have been meeting Zanu-PF officials informally and ended up being told a range of opinions and predictions none of which had anything to do with Zanu-PF's official positions.
Instead of ending up with valuable insider intelligence it looks like the US ended up mostly with dud information. As a result US policy in Zimbabwe can hardly be said to have been a success. They ended up backing a lame Prime Minister while Zanu-PF 'hard-liners' continued to exercise the real power.
Could this have been avoided if they had taken official positions more seriously? Could it be that the US diplomats were being deliberately misled, by the informal contacts they sought? I don't know the answers, and I doubt that anyone in the US diplomatic corps does either.
People who know Zimbabweans society inside out would have told you that the influence of the highly respected liberation war cadre was not about to wane and could definitely now be switched off overnight. Back when I was still writing blogs for the now defunct The Zimbabwe Times, I was among the first to predict that the MDC could not rule without the backing of the military.
Look at the size of Mujuru's funeral. That alone tells you that there are millions of ordinary people out there who care about what General Mujuru did for the country. That is helping get rid of the yoke of cruel racist colonialism.
Then the MDC almost totally ignored the existence of the military. Now they are trying to fashion a relationship of sorts with the military but I believe it is now too late for it to make much of a difference. If fact rather than build alliances and mutual respect, they are calling for 'security sector reform' which suggests they still don't have meaningful influence on or from the military.
The MDC strategy in Zimbabwe was not well thought out from the beginning. It was and largely still is a hodge-podge collection of opportunistic interests only united by their common abhorrence of Mugabe.
They will write reports about anything and everything. The unpleasant side effect of this excessive report writing is that people who thought they were in informal meetings with US officials, have been surprised to find their names popping up in the formal US reports released by Wikileaks.
A Thai diplomat complained that an informal lunch meeting with a US official several years ago meant that his name appeared in a formal US report.
One wonders whether US diplomats should now be treated like lepers. Avoid them in case your name ends popping up where you don't want it to pop up.
Secondly I don't understand the logic of meeting people informally when they are not prepared to meet some of them formally. Take for example Zimbabwe's case. Over the years US diplomats have been meeting Zanu-PF officials informally and ended up being told a range of opinions and predictions none of which had anything to do with Zanu-PF's official positions.
Instead of ending up with valuable insider intelligence it looks like the US ended up mostly with dud information. As a result US policy in Zimbabwe can hardly be said to have been a success. They ended up backing a lame Prime Minister while Zanu-PF 'hard-liners' continued to exercise the real power.
Could this have been avoided if they had taken official positions more seriously? Could it be that the US diplomats were being deliberately misled, by the informal contacts they sought? I don't know the answers, and I doubt that anyone in the US diplomatic corps does either.
People who know Zimbabweans society inside out would have told you that the influence of the highly respected liberation war cadre was not about to wane and could definitely now be switched off overnight. Back when I was still writing blogs for the now defunct The Zimbabwe Times, I was among the first to predict that the MDC could not rule without the backing of the military.
Look at the size of Mujuru's funeral. That alone tells you that there are millions of ordinary people out there who care about what General Mujuru did for the country. That is helping get rid of the yoke of cruel racist colonialism.
Then the MDC almost totally ignored the existence of the military. Now they are trying to fashion a relationship of sorts with the military but I believe it is now too late for it to make much of a difference. If fact rather than build alliances and mutual respect, they are calling for 'security sector reform' which suggests they still don't have meaningful influence on or from the military.
The MDC strategy in Zimbabwe was not well thought out from the beginning. It was and largely still is a hodge-podge collection of opportunistic interests only united by their common abhorrence of Mugabe.
Saturday, 27 August 2011
Justice and Gadhafi's demise
Gadhafi was one of the worst dictators the world has ever seen there is absolutely no doubt about that. But there also absolutely no doubt that today the lives of Libyans are much less secure, much less comfortable much more expendable than they were under Gadhafi. Evaluations that I have seen in news media are estimating that it will take at least 10 years to restore the civil infrastructure just to the level it is today. What is irreplaceable forever is the lives of loved ones that have been lost. Brothers, sisters, mothers and father have been wrenched away from their loved ones. Holes in the heart cannot be patched up like holes in concrete.
What leaves a numb ache in the hearts of those who care, is that this could have been avoided. A negotiated transition was possible and was only prevented by NATO sponsorship of the violence. Much of the carnage and mayhem, in Libya today could have been avoided through a negotiated transition rather than a fought transition. Gadhafi had already agreed to a transition, but apparently those backing the rebels did no want a transition that would leave Libya standing.
Much more worrying is the unspoken insinuation that third world lives are cheap and expendable, and much less valuable than first world lives. To me this is a form of discrimination equal to, if not worse, than racism.
Last but not least the world needs to take stock and evaluate what started as a mission to 'protect civilians' ended up being an openly one sided participation in a civil war. The kind od insincerity, lying, cheating and dishonourable behaviour exhibited by NATO clearly has an effect of the ability of the world to intervene in other parts of the world.
Clearly the international community is now hobbled on Syria. Nobody can trust that whatever action is authorised will not be twisted and abused by some Western powers. It is a sad day when not authorising anything is seen as being better than authorising limited action because you cannot trust the implementers to twist the authorisation for their own ends. It is a sad day when the policemen are worse than the robbers. It is a sad day when 'humanitarian intervention' result in more carnage and abuse than the original situation.
The problem is made worse by international institutions that have sacrificed their independence. The UN secretary general has reduced himself to a mere foreign minister of some of the G7 countries. Around the world the UN is increasing being seen as a vassal and appendage of only some of the world powers.
I don't know if the ICC is even worth mentioning. That organisation has been so biased that there is little hope of its actions being seen as justice delivery at all. It has reduced itself a mere witch-hunter and kangaroo court. The world does need a true centre of justice delivery but the ICC is simply not up to the task. Right now the situation in Libya needs a proper and professional investigation into possible crimes by all sides including NATO commanders who can legitimately be accused of indiscriminate bombing in some instances. But the ICC has reduced itself to a tool for merely harassing Gadhafi, not justice delivery in Libya.
The ICC is to Western powers what some Zimbabwean judges are to Robert Mugabe. In fact it is insulting to Zimbabwean judges to make such a comparison. They are much more professional under much more difficult circumstances.
Clearly Gadhafi is the bigger abuser in Libya. But, in a proper justice system, you do not let the petty thieves go because you have caught the murderer. The ICC should not let rebel and NATO commanders go scot-free because Gadhafi is there. Justice is not just about catching the big criminal only, it is more about a thorough and credible process being undertaken to deliver justice at all levels.
Monday, 15 August 2011
Personality Politics Ruining Zimbabwe
There is no doubt that Zimbabwe's opposition politicians are hungry for success. They are trying their best to do something that will make them hugely successful and hugely popular in the eyes of the public.
Probably the biggest political success of the last few generations was the liberation struggle to shake off the shackles of white minority oppression. That was a struggle to end a clearly defined system of repression, racial discrimination and exploitation.
It was struggle that shaped the psyche and culture of the country immernsely. The concept of national hero was born out of it. Songs some recorded, some never recorded mushroomed heaping all sorts of accolades on those who fought in the liberation war. Zimbabwean culture being typically African, everything revolves around song and dance. Moments of sorrow are marked by song, moments of joy are marked by song, times of hard work pass easily through song.
It is patently obvious that the liberation struggle is the yardstick opposition politicians are measuring themselves by. Their rhetoric, their demeanour and even their commemorations are all steeped in language reminiscent of the liberation struggle. Talk of fallen heroes, talk of the struggle has sought to elevate what is a mere ruckus over leadership change, and the excessive stay of one man in power, into liberation struggle of sorts.
The first clue that talk of liberation is misplaced is that the antagonist and protagonist revolve around persons not systems, much like a cheap action movie. True liberation struggles like the American Civil Rights movement, have systems as the antagonist. True liberation struggles do not have one person as an irreplaceable hero.
Our own liberation struggle has heroes like Jason Ziyapapa Moyo, Hepert Chitepo, Leopold Takawira, Ndabaningi Sithole and others who did their part but their removal was never considered a threat to the very struggle itself. The American Civil Rights movement had heroes ranging from Medgar Evers to Martin Luther King Jr. The deaths or removal of these individuals changed nothing. It did not alter the system or the need to dismantle the system.
Contrast that with Zimbabwe's politics today. Everything is revolving around two people, Mugabe and Tsvangirai. The departure of Mugabe would pull the rug from under much off the opposition rhetoric and strategy. At the same time Tsvangirai is handled like a rare egg because there is no other person with the brand-power to take his position in Zimbabwe politics. What kind cause is it, that merely revolves around a person's brand-power.
I always lament that this kind of personality politics has served nothing but to draw energy, time and resources away from substantive issues. There is no more proper assessment of the development needs of communities. This has been substituted by assessments of who they support.
Youths are mobilised to bludgeon opponents and not to partake in community projects. Youths are plied with intoxicating substances not career enhancing skills and knowledge. These are hallmarks of opportunistic tactics not visionary strategy.
Tuesday, 9 August 2011
Libya Ceasefire and Negotiations
NATO bombing of Libya has been going on for almost half the year now. To say that the outcome is any more certain than it was in March is a lie. If anything it is now much, much less certain.
Today there was a story on BBC about rural buildings that were bombed by NATO. The BBC interviewed a schoolgirl who had been injured in the bombing. Gadhafi's government claims that 85 civilians died. I believe they are exaggerating.
NATO claims they are sure it was a military target. I am sure they are lying through their teeth. The truth is they don't know what they bombed. They don't have men on the ground and apparently they rely on the rebels for much of their target selection intelligence.
The rebels are mostly untrained civilians. It is certain that their intelligence will be unreliable, based on wrong or incompetent analysis and sometimes plain malice. For example getting NATO to bomb their house could be a very cool way of getting back at the family of that girl who embarrassed me by rejecting my hand in marriage. This is conjecture on my part but there is no denying that family and tribal alliances play a very significant role in which side one supports or opposes in African conflicts, and perceived social slights play a large part in forging those enmities and alliances.
I have also seen an article suggesting that occupation by another Arab country could be the face saving way out of this quagmire for NATO. Why do we have this conflict anyway? The people of Libya supposedly want a democracy with free and fair elections. Since when did foreign occupation and democracy become bosom buddies?
NATO seem to be keeping on bombing Libya because they don't know what else to do. Since they have the bombs, the aircraft and the missiles, they will just keep lobbing them until they can think of another way to end this.
The truth is that if NATO wanted to spare the people of Libya the uncertainty, tribulation and fear of living in a war situation, they don't even have to think. All they have to do is take one of the options already on the table, a ceasefire followed by elections within a time limit.
Can Gadhafi be trusted? Of course not. But taking a chance with negotiated solution is much much better than bombing the Libyan people and their infrastructure - not Gadhafi - until Gadhafi gives in to what has evolved to be a mere battle of wills. And all this because of Sarkozy's inexperience and naivete as an international political leader.
The bottom line is that the ongoing NATO bombing and destruction of Libya is nothing but gratuitous. It may, hopefully, eventually get Gadhafi to depart but to any thinking person a negotiated exit, which Gadhafi has already agreed to, is a much more certain and much less destructive way of getting the same result that NATO are claiming can only be gotten through raining fire and brimstone upon Libya's harpless people.
If the negotiations had started in March or even April we could be talking about an election in Libya by the end of the year. Right now we are talking about maybe a foreign occupation without a timeline for an election. If you call that progress then I will call what comes out of a horse's behind chocolate.
The best way to put an end to the suffering of the Libyan people right now is an immediate ceasefire and commencement of negotiations. Did I hear someone say the rebels won't agree to that? Rebels my foot. Without NATO bombs there would be no rebels. Those guys cannot organise a shooting contest in an armoury. They have been held up by NATO policies, definitely not their own competence. They will do what they are told to do by NATO.
Ceasefire and Negotiations for Libya!
Today there was a story on BBC about rural buildings that were bombed by NATO. The BBC interviewed a schoolgirl who had been injured in the bombing. Gadhafi's government claims that 85 civilians died. I believe they are exaggerating.
NATO claims they are sure it was a military target. I am sure they are lying through their teeth. The truth is they don't know what they bombed. They don't have men on the ground and apparently they rely on the rebels for much of their target selection intelligence.
The rebels are mostly untrained civilians. It is certain that their intelligence will be unreliable, based on wrong or incompetent analysis and sometimes plain malice. For example getting NATO to bomb their house could be a very cool way of getting back at the family of that girl who embarrassed me by rejecting my hand in marriage. This is conjecture on my part but there is no denying that family and tribal alliances play a very significant role in which side one supports or opposes in African conflicts, and perceived social slights play a large part in forging those enmities and alliances.
I have also seen an article suggesting that occupation by another Arab country could be the face saving way out of this quagmire for NATO. Why do we have this conflict anyway? The people of Libya supposedly want a democracy with free and fair elections. Since when did foreign occupation and democracy become bosom buddies?
NATO seem to be keeping on bombing Libya because they don't know what else to do. Since they have the bombs, the aircraft and the missiles, they will just keep lobbing them until they can think of another way to end this.
The truth is that if NATO wanted to spare the people of Libya the uncertainty, tribulation and fear of living in a war situation, they don't even have to think. All they have to do is take one of the options already on the table, a ceasefire followed by elections within a time limit.
Can Gadhafi be trusted? Of course not. But taking a chance with negotiated solution is much much better than bombing the Libyan people and their infrastructure - not Gadhafi - until Gadhafi gives in to what has evolved to be a mere battle of wills. And all this because of Sarkozy's inexperience and naivete as an international political leader.
The bottom line is that the ongoing NATO bombing and destruction of Libya is nothing but gratuitous. It may, hopefully, eventually get Gadhafi to depart but to any thinking person a negotiated exit, which Gadhafi has already agreed to, is a much more certain and much less destructive way of getting the same result that NATO are claiming can only be gotten through raining fire and brimstone upon Libya's harpless people.
If the negotiations had started in March or even April we could be talking about an election in Libya by the end of the year. Right now we are talking about maybe a foreign occupation without a timeline for an election. If you call that progress then I will call what comes out of a horse's behind chocolate.
The best way to put an end to the suffering of the Libyan people right now is an immediate ceasefire and commencement of negotiations. Did I hear someone say the rebels won't agree to that? Rebels my foot. Without NATO bombs there would be no rebels. Those guys cannot organise a shooting contest in an armoury. They have been held up by NATO policies, definitely not their own competence. They will do what they are told to do by NATO.
Ceasefire and Negotiations for Libya!
Regionalism in Zimbabwe: A mere red herring.
The issue if regionalism keeps getting raised by narrow-minded people who are refusing to see the forest for the woods.
Firstly local development issues are the purview of district councils. If the people running those are incompetent, then they should also be taken to the cleaners not just national leaders.
Secondly with so many people with names like Diniwe Mutambudzi, Thabani Magaya, Tichaona Mkandla and even my own brother Bekezela Edmore Punungwe (Facebook page), it is pointless and impractical to try and allocate most Zimbabweans to a particular region.
If you take the extreme view like the Mtwakhazi Liberation Front where does that leave my brother Bekezela born in Harare to a mother from Filabusi and a father from Chivhumudhara. Does he qualify as a Mtwakhazian? If maybe he qualifies because of his Ndebele name, what about my other brothers Muchineripi Punungwe and Tawanda Punungwe? Same father and same mother as this guy named Bekezela. What about my friend Steve Mpofu born in Nkayi but who has since made a life for himself in Harare. Does he have to abandon his mansion in Chisipite?
What about our neighbours in Chivhu, the Mpundumani family, the Ndlukula family, the Molai family. Do they have to abandon the homes that they have occupied for generations (and their youngsters don't speak even a word of Ndebele).
It is my sincere belief that any Zimbabwean who has and espouses a national outlook can lead Zimbabwe. It would be naive to expect those who constantly blurb along regional lines to get the votes of the people they are constantly criticising along ethnic lines.
It is also a fact that once issues are stripped down to regional issues then so called Shona (none of us calls ourselves Shona by the way. I am a muBarwe and my mother is a muHera) enjoy a significant advantage in numbers. There is no need for any of us to try and explain or be apologetic about it, because none of us is Cecil John Rhodes, Leander Starr Jameson, Frank Johnson or Frederick Selous the people most responsible for where the county's borders are now.
Zimbabwe's Diamond Torture Camps : Fact or Fiction?
The sudden discovery of torture camps in one's country is a chilling, spine freezing experience for anyone who loves their country as much as I do. I was concerned.
I rushed to the BBC website and read the BBC online article, and another by The Guardian. There are no substantive facts presented in either article. All they do is rehash long running gossip, rumours and urban legends about Marange and try and present that as if it were some earth shattering discovery.
At one time a major Western newspaper, The Chicago Tribune, published an internet urban legend as fact claiming that an Air Zimbabwe pilot locked himself out of the cockpit and had to hack down the door with an axe. http://www.snopes.com/travel/airline/fireaxe.asp. This is the same kind of hatchet job journalism we are witnessing here.
The truth of the matter is that ever since the discovery of Marange diamonds a lot of colourful rumours and gossip have been swirling around relating to them.
I am surprised the BBC program did not mention the stories of diamond poachers (colloquial known as magweja) skinning each other alive, to extract stones from those who may have swallowed them. Nor the ones about a villager from the area feeding his cattle exclusively on cabbages trucked in everyday. There are other urban legends about villagers installing expensive TV's in their chicken runs so that the feathered ones could watch.
The BBC has selected only some of these rumours and colourful claims that are negative for the government and tried to present them as fact. If you ask me that is gutter journalism, bad enough to make News of the World journalists seem like saintly friars.
For example the claim that detainees where whipped 120 times a day simply doesn't hold water, unless of course they were being whipped by one year old toddlers. If that was true there would be hundreds of people with scars to bear the testimony and probably numerous deaths as well. Being given 10 lashes by a strong man let alone 120 is not easy for the human body to endure.
My major concern is that this kind of negativism about Zimbabwe rubs off on the rest of us, not just those attacked.
It is ordinary Zimbabweans who eventually face xenophobic attacks from hosts who have negative perceptions about them. It is ordinary Zimbabweans who face deportations and other difficulties because of negative perceptions about their country. It is ordinary Zimbabweans who face all kinds of discrimination wherever they go because of negative perceptions.
I rushed to the BBC website and read the BBC online article, and another by The Guardian. There are no substantive facts presented in either article. All they do is rehash long running gossip, rumours and urban legends about Marange and try and present that as if it were some earth shattering discovery.
At one time a major Western newspaper, The Chicago Tribune, published an internet urban legend as fact claiming that an Air Zimbabwe pilot locked himself out of the cockpit and had to hack down the door with an axe. http://www.snopes.com/travel/airline/fireaxe.asp. This is the same kind of hatchet job journalism we are witnessing here.
The truth of the matter is that ever since the discovery of Marange diamonds a lot of colourful rumours and gossip have been swirling around relating to them.
I am surprised the BBC program did not mention the stories of diamond poachers (colloquial known as magweja) skinning each other alive, to extract stones from those who may have swallowed them. Nor the ones about a villager from the area feeding his cattle exclusively on cabbages trucked in everyday. There are other urban legends about villagers installing expensive TV's in their chicken runs so that the feathered ones could watch.
The BBC has selected only some of these rumours and colourful claims that are negative for the government and tried to present them as fact. If you ask me that is gutter journalism, bad enough to make News of the World journalists seem like saintly friars.
For example the claim that detainees where whipped 120 times a day simply doesn't hold water, unless of course they were being whipped by one year old toddlers. If that was true there would be hundreds of people with scars to bear the testimony and probably numerous deaths as well. Being given 10 lashes by a strong man let alone 120 is not easy for the human body to endure.
My major concern is that this kind of negativism about Zimbabwe rubs off on the rest of us, not just those attacked.
It is ordinary Zimbabweans who eventually face xenophobic attacks from hosts who have negative perceptions about them. It is ordinary Zimbabweans who face deportations and other difficulties because of negative perceptions about their country. It is ordinary Zimbabweans who face all kinds of discrimination wherever they go because of negative perceptions.
Sunday, 7 August 2011
Zimbabwe Politics
The pathetic thing about Zimbabwe politicians of the past 2 decades, is that they cannot seem to identify substantive issues to formulate policies around, yet there are so many things which need to be done in the country.
Consequently opposition politics has been reduced to mere Mugabe and Zanu-PF trashing, leaving the erena almost devoid of substantive issues except those raised by Zanu-PF itself.
For example the only substantive issues that are talked about in any depth are land reform and indigenisation. These were brought into the debate by Zanu-PF policies.
If opposition parties do not want to follow behind Zanu-PF on policy, there are numerous other national development issues they could formulate policies around. For example infrastructure development is one such issue. Rural infrastructure is deplorable and needs to be upgraded.
Rural were at first neglected by past colonial governments as part of their racist policies. Unfortunately the black population has been mentally colonised and have come to consider it normal that rural areas are backward. Rural dwellers most living in titleless communal lands need secure legal tenure to foster their development.
Zimbabwe is famed for its educated people. However the truth is that Zimbabweans are educated because of the work ethic of the students. In terms of basic education infrastructure such as classroom teaching aids, Zimbabwe is horrendously backward. Most schools are not computerised or even electrified. Universities are horribly under-equipped and understaffed.
Yet Zimbabwe's politicians are focused on taking the little resources the country has and sending their often dull children to expensive schools and universities outside the country. Bona is in Hong Kong and the Tsvangirai brood are all over the world.
Sending politicians children overseas is not only expensive in terms of the fees but also expensive in terms of their upkeep. The political brats are often spoilt into leading pointlessly expensive lifestyles.
These are issues which any sensible opposition could formulate national policies around. Yet what do we get endless harping about Mugabe this, Zanu-PF that. Exchange of insults has suplanted the exchange of ideas.
Organising youths into violent groups rather than organising them into productive self-help groups has become a favourite pass-time of all political parties. It is sad that buying youths scuds is considered a legitimate campaign strategy by all these politicians.
I cry for Zimbabwe.
Consequently opposition politics has been reduced to mere Mugabe and Zanu-PF trashing, leaving the erena almost devoid of substantive issues except those raised by Zanu-PF itself.
For example the only substantive issues that are talked about in any depth are land reform and indigenisation. These were brought into the debate by Zanu-PF policies.
If opposition parties do not want to follow behind Zanu-PF on policy, there are numerous other national development issues they could formulate policies around. For example infrastructure development is one such issue. Rural infrastructure is deplorable and needs to be upgraded.
Rural were at first neglected by past colonial governments as part of their racist policies. Unfortunately the black population has been mentally colonised and have come to consider it normal that rural areas are backward. Rural dwellers most living in titleless communal lands need secure legal tenure to foster their development.
Zimbabwe is famed for its educated people. However the truth is that Zimbabweans are educated because of the work ethic of the students. In terms of basic education infrastructure such as classroom teaching aids, Zimbabwe is horrendously backward. Most schools are not computerised or even electrified. Universities are horribly under-equipped and understaffed.
Yet Zimbabwe's politicians are focused on taking the little resources the country has and sending their often dull children to expensive schools and universities outside the country. Bona is in Hong Kong and the Tsvangirai brood are all over the world.
Sending politicians children overseas is not only expensive in terms of the fees but also expensive in terms of their upkeep. The political brats are often spoilt into leading pointlessly expensive lifestyles.
These are issues which any sensible opposition could formulate national policies around. Yet what do we get endless harping about Mugabe this, Zanu-PF that. Exchange of insults has suplanted the exchange of ideas.
Organising youths into violent groups rather than organising them into productive self-help groups has become a favourite pass-time of all political parties. It is sad that buying youths scuds is considered a legitimate campaign strategy by all these politicians.
I cry for Zimbabwe.
Sunday, 31 July 2011
Wither Libya?
Nato's Libya operation has panned out to be a virtually aimless pogrom of gratuitous violence. It continues to this day because the traditionally racist Europeans leading the operation do not care about the African Libyan lives being lost.
They know the operation is not leading anywhere but because it Africans dying they do not care to bring the conflict to the most sensible end - through a ceasefire and negotiations not a military victory by any of the sides.
The only side capable of military victory is the Gadhafi side but the Europeans have prevented that from happening prolonging the conflict. Despite my attempts to filter through the Nato propaganda, I still fail to see where a prolonged conflict, rather a negotiated solution, is in the best interests of Libya.
In fact, common sense tells me that prolonged conflict is in the interests of those bend on weakening Libya and removing her as a significant force in African politics. Libya has been the backbone of the AU which was slowly gaining assertiveness in international politics. Despite his off-the handle loose nut behaviour, the crazy colonel's money has been one of the nuts holding the AU's handle firmly in place. Removing the colonel is an obvious way of setting the AU back by several years if not decades.
Indeed the way the AU was treated in the whole saga suggests a deliberate ploy to humiliate the organisation.
An assertive and confident African continent is a threat to European countries whose economies are still dependent on colonial resources. It does not surprise me that the countries that led the onslaught on Libya had recently had problems which politicians in former colonies who refused to toe the line. France with Laurent Gbagbo and Britain with Robert Mugabe.
Dictatorship is no good and Gadhafi's dictatorship was among the worst, but the situation that Libyans are in now, is worse than Gadhafi's dictatorship. Not even Nato despite their bluster and bravado know what the future holds for Libya.
With the killing of a rebel general by rebels, everything is increasingly pointing towards sectarian strife. It would also have send a message to other defectors and planned defectors that they don't have a safe place to go. Defecting was probably not the wisest of decisions on their part. Defecting former Gadhafi allies should not expect to find a comfort zone among the long-standing opponents of Gadhafi. Life is not a Madagascar movie where a Zebra and a Lion can become the best of friends. If you have been opponents for life you do not become trusted buddies in the span of the moment it takes to say 'I am defecting'.
The TNF is a hodge-podge of long time Gadhafi opponents and defectors. As General Younnes death shows, the defectors were probably better off sticking with Gadhafi.
They know the operation is not leading anywhere but because it Africans dying they do not care to bring the conflict to the most sensible end - through a ceasefire and negotiations not a military victory by any of the sides.
The only side capable of military victory is the Gadhafi side but the Europeans have prevented that from happening prolonging the conflict. Despite my attempts to filter through the Nato propaganda, I still fail to see where a prolonged conflict, rather a negotiated solution, is in the best interests of Libya.
In fact, common sense tells me that prolonged conflict is in the interests of those bend on weakening Libya and removing her as a significant force in African politics. Libya has been the backbone of the AU which was slowly gaining assertiveness in international politics. Despite his off-the handle loose nut behaviour, the crazy colonel's money has been one of the nuts holding the AU's handle firmly in place. Removing the colonel is an obvious way of setting the AU back by several years if not decades.
Indeed the way the AU was treated in the whole saga suggests a deliberate ploy to humiliate the organisation.
An assertive and confident African continent is a threat to European countries whose economies are still dependent on colonial resources. It does not surprise me that the countries that led the onslaught on Libya had recently had problems which politicians in former colonies who refused to toe the line. France with Laurent Gbagbo and Britain with Robert Mugabe.
Dictatorship is no good and Gadhafi's dictatorship was among the worst, but the situation that Libyans are in now, is worse than Gadhafi's dictatorship. Not even Nato despite their bluster and bravado know what the future holds for Libya.
With the killing of a rebel general by rebels, everything is increasingly pointing towards sectarian strife. It would also have send a message to other defectors and planned defectors that they don't have a safe place to go. Defecting was probably not the wisest of decisions on their part. Defecting former Gadhafi allies should not expect to find a comfort zone among the long-standing opponents of Gadhafi. Life is not a Madagascar movie where a Zebra and a Lion can become the best of friends. If you have been opponents for life you do not become trusted buddies in the span of the moment it takes to say 'I am defecting'.
The TNF is a hodge-podge of long time Gadhafi opponents and defectors. As General Younnes death shows, the defectors were probably better off sticking with Gadhafi.
Sunday, 24 April 2011
The Origins of Easter
The foundation of the Christian religion is the events that happened at Mount Calvary 2 millenia ago. Jesus's death by crucifixion, subsequent resurrection and ascendancy to Heaven are foundations upon which the Christian religion is founded.
 |
| Illustration 1: A depiction of goddess Ostara (Eostre). |
Consequently the most important holiday in the Christian calendar is the Easter holiday. Easter Sunday marks the day on which Jesus resurrected. That resurrection is the basis of all Christian theology.
There are many calendars in this world, the Chinese have their own calendar defining such things as year of the dog, year of the chicken and so on. This year is year 4708 in the Chinese calendar and is the year of the rabbit.
The Buddhists have their own calendar based on the nirvana of Buddha. This year is 2554 in the Buddhist calendar.
However dates as we know them today are based on the Christian calendar, or to be more precise the Catholic calendar, known as the Gregorian Calendar. Many people might not know, but Easter is also closely related to sun worship and the worship of pagan gods.
Easter is held on the first Sunday after the first full moon of the spring equinox. The problem was that Easter day tended to drift over the years because the solar cycle (year) is not a whole number multiple of the Earth's rotational cycle (day). As a result civil calendars based on merely counting the number of days tend to drift relative to the solar year.
In 1582 Pope Gregory signed a degree describing an elaborate formula to calculate the date of Easter based on the solar cycle and not on the then widely used civil calendar the Julian Calendar. The resulting calendar, the Gregorian Calendar, is the calendar that is today most widely used as the civil calendar in the world. This year is numbered 2011AD based on the Gregorian calendar. It is the number of the year based on the Catholic formula for calculating the days of Easter.
Other ancient Christian denominations such as the Eastern Orthodox, the Greek Orthodoc, the Coptic and the Ethiopian Orthodox churches have their own year numbers and celebrate Easter on different days to the Catholic based Christians.
The feast of Easter itself is not entirely based on the resurrection of Jesus but was adopted by Christians from pre-existing pagan religions. As alluded to earlier the feast is related to the first full moon after the spring equinox. The equinox is the day of the year when the sun is exactly above the equator and day is equal to night at every latitude in the world. There are two equinoxes one just before spring and summer, the other before autumn and winter. Easter is celebrated after the first full moon of the spring equinox and is related to the most ancient practices of worshipping the sun and the moon.
However even though it is related to sun worship, Easter was not passed on to Christians directly from sun worshippers. Firstly the name Easter is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible but is derived from the Eastre the name of the Anglo-Saxon goddess of spring. The Anglo-Saxons themselves are thought to have adopted the name from Eostre or Austro the Barbarian goddess of dawn. Notice the pagan goddesses are associated with the times of spring or dawn, largely considered by humans to be times of renewal, awakening or resurrection.
 |
| Illustration 2: A depiction of Ishtar goddess of fertility, love and sex found on a Babylonian vase kept in a French museum |
In Middle East, the ancient Babylonians, whose civilisation existed about 2000 years before Christ, held summer festives linked to the god Tammuz who was brought back (resurrected) from the Underworld every six months. Tammuz had been send to the underworld by Ishtar, the goddess of fertility, love and sex.
The Babylonian legend has it that Ishtar demanded of her sister who was ruler of the underworld that she be let into the underworld. Her sister agreed but with the condition that at each gate to the underworld she shed an item of clothing. Ishtar agreed and proceeded to enter the underworld. At the seventh gate (seven?!) she was completely naked. Despite that she was now naked, Ishtar proceeded to sit on the throne of the underworld whereupon the other gods of the underworld gazed upon her with the eyes of death. She became a corpse and was hung on a nail.
However a servant of the gods Enki pleaded with the gods and Ishtar was resurrected. She was allowed to go back but she had to find someone to replace her. When Ishtar came back from the underworld she found that her lover Tammuz was not mourning her at all. So she send him to the Underworld. Tammuz's sister Geshtinanna was sad and volunteered to spend six months of the year in the Underworld on his behalf. Consequently Tammuz came back from the Underworld every six months and his coming (resurrection) was marked by a festival.
For Christians Easter marks the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ but as we can see the whole idea of death and resurrection of a god or gods had existed beforehand.
Also, nowhere in the Bible are hares and eggs mentioned but today the Easter bunny and the Easter egg are considered contemporary items of the culture surrounding the Easter festival. Where did they come from? The Easter bunny and East egg have their origins in ancient Barbarian fertility lore. The hare is a symbol of copious breeding and copulation while eggs are symbols of fertility. As mentioned earlier the Babylonian goddess Ishtar was the goddess of among other things sex, love and fertility.
Again as mentioned earlier the name Easter comes directly from Eastre an Anglo-Saxon goddess who - to quote from French scholars Alfred Ernout and Antionne Meillet - “represented spring fecundity, love and carnal pleasure that leads to fecundity.”
In short the contemporary symbols of Easter are directly associated with Barbarian (ancient European) beliefs on fertility, love and sex and the Babylonian goddess of the same.
In fact the followers of Ishtar engaged in what is called sacred prostitution. The requirement was that at least once in their lifetime a follower had to go to the temple and engage in public sex with a complete stranger.
Spring is the time of year when flora blossoms and fauna procreates in abundance and the world renews itself, and ancient humans have made it the time to celebrate renewal. Spring is marked by the time when the sun 'comes back' and days become longer than nights.
The Gregorian Calendar is explicitly defined such that the date of Easter never drifts with respect to the time when the sun 'comes back' in Northern hemisphere terms. The pre-summer (Northern hemispheric) equinox occurs on 21 March each year as defined by the Gregorian Calendar. Leap years, and number of days in months are so carefully defined that the day when sun comes back never ever shifts in the Gregorian Calendar.
Easter Sunday is then set as the first Sunday after the first full moon after the equinox heralding summer. In other words Jesus's resurrection is made to follow the cycles of the sun and the moon. Also, the festival itself is associated with various gods of fertility, love and sex.
The Gregorian Calendar was decreed by Pope Gregory so it is the Catholic church which calculates the dates of Easter for most of the world. The Protestant and Pentecostal variations of Christianity mostly branched off from Catholicism and use the same date for Easter though I doubt whether most of their pastors and ministers would be able to explain how this date is defined. The process of calculating the date of Easter, called Computus, which had been the subject of much controversy was that put to rest by Pope Gregory. The name Computus is what eventually gave rise to the English words computer, computation and computer.
Let me make it clear, I am not claiming that Christians worship the sun, the moon and pagan gods. However, I consider it better to open my eyes and seek knowledge than to keep my eyes shut and be led to nowhere. This is not a pun for the Christian practice of praying with the eyes shut either. However it is clear that religious practices have borrowed from past religions to a much greater extend than some would admit.
Sunday, 11 July 2010
My encounter with South African Police
Rumours about xenophobic attacks being unleashed on foreigners soon after the world cup have been doing the rounds for a long time. Many Zimbabweans I know have been preparing to leave or at least move out of the townships into safer areas.
I never really took the threats seriously until I encountered what I consider xenophobic sentiments from the very people supposed to uphold the law and safety of every individual in South Africa, the police.
The first incident was when I went to obtain an affidavit from Kempton Park police station to allow my uncle to drive my car to Zimbabwe and back. I had two previous affidavits for the same car from the same police station, one of them authorizing my uncle to drive to Zimbabwe and back. It had expired.
Apparently there is a directive saying police station should no longer issue such affidavits. The reasons for the directive might be legitimate, but the response I got from the police officer sitting at the counter was decidedly xenophobic.
'You foreigners are stealing our cars and taking them over the borders. We are not going to give you those affidavits anymore?'
I produced the two previous affidavits, my traffic register certificate, and the registration book of the car. "These are the papers of the vehicle" I tried to explain. "As you can see I got affidavits from this same police station before."
"We are not giving foreigners affidavits anymore. You take our cars"
"How can I steal the same car three times with affidavits from the same police station" I asked.
The policeman simply turned away and started talking to his colleagues in Pedi or is it Sotho.
That there is a directive stopping police stations from signing affidavits authorizing people to take cars out of South Africa may be true. However I don't think such a directive would be specifically targeted at foreigners. I believe this was merely a case of the individual policeman's xenophobic sentiments coming to the surface, causing him to mis-explain an action that may have entirely valid reasons.
That same evening I drove to Ellim north of Polokwane in the Limpopo Province. As we were driving back at night we were stopped by policemen in a van. One of them, came to the passenger side where I was sitting and asked me for my papers. I gave him my passport. In the meantime my colleague went to the back to open the canopy for the other policeman.
When my friend came back the policeman standing beside me gruffly grunted to him, "Passport?"
My friend produced his asylum document.
"Oh you have got asylum." The policeman was looking visibly excitable. "Do you know we are going to stop this soon after world cup". He declared flailing the sheet of paper in his hand.
"After world cup no more!" spittle showered on my face as veins stood out on the policeman's forehead. "We at SAPS will work very hard." He declared. "We will bring buses, trucks, and trains and take you to the river" I presumed he meant the Limpopo. "Once across the river - once across that bridge - no more coming back for you guys. We will deploy helicopters, SAPS in full force, to stop you."
"No more!" He thundered as he threw the asylum document back at my colleague.
He glowered at us for a full half minute breathing heavily. The look on his face was scary. I don't know what was going on his mind, but the chances that it was sympathy or good intentions are about as high as those of finding a glacier in the Sahara.
"You can go." He finally declared. My colleague quickly started the car and drove off. We heaved huge sighs of relief as we left him walking back towards his patrol car.
The question that begs an answer is what are the chances of policemen, who express views such as the above, acting decisively to stop xenophobia motivated criminal rampages from ordinary members of the public. If the inspector at Kempton Park police station or the Polokwane patrolman had found me being neck-laced in the street would they have acted decisively to save me. Were they not going to dilly-dally and wait for the crowd to 'finish the job'.
It is perhaps educative that nobody was ever arrested or convicted for the 2008 xenophobic rampages despite scores of people being murdered. There was also plenty of evidence including photographs showing attackers. There were more than enough leads to allow any competent and correctly motivated police force to find plenty of the attackers and bring them to book. However after my weekend encounter with two police officers, I can't help but think that nothing decisive was done to bring the criminals to book because a lot of the officers are sympathetic to their xenophobic viewpoint.
I never really took the threats seriously until I encountered what I consider xenophobic sentiments from the very people supposed to uphold the law and safety of every individual in South Africa, the police.
The first incident was when I went to obtain an affidavit from Kempton Park police station to allow my uncle to drive my car to Zimbabwe and back. I had two previous affidavits for the same car from the same police station, one of them authorizing my uncle to drive to Zimbabwe and back. It had expired.
Apparently there is a directive saying police station should no longer issue such affidavits. The reasons for the directive might be legitimate, but the response I got from the police officer sitting at the counter was decidedly xenophobic.
'You foreigners are stealing our cars and taking them over the borders. We are not going to give you those affidavits anymore?'
I produced the two previous affidavits, my traffic register certificate, and the registration book of the car. "These are the papers of the vehicle" I tried to explain. "As you can see I got affidavits from this same police station before."
"We are not giving foreigners affidavits anymore. You take our cars"
"How can I steal the same car three times with affidavits from the same police station" I asked.
The policeman simply turned away and started talking to his colleagues in Pedi or is it Sotho.
That there is a directive stopping police stations from signing affidavits authorizing people to take cars out of South Africa may be true. However I don't think such a directive would be specifically targeted at foreigners. I believe this was merely a case of the individual policeman's xenophobic sentiments coming to the surface, causing him to mis-explain an action that may have entirely valid reasons.
That same evening I drove to Ellim north of Polokwane in the Limpopo Province. As we were driving back at night we were stopped by policemen in a van. One of them, came to the passenger side where I was sitting and asked me for my papers. I gave him my passport. In the meantime my colleague went to the back to open the canopy for the other policeman.
When my friend came back the policeman standing beside me gruffly grunted to him, "Passport?"
My friend produced his asylum document.
"Oh you have got asylum." The policeman was looking visibly excitable. "Do you know we are going to stop this soon after world cup". He declared flailing the sheet of paper in his hand.
"After world cup no more!" spittle showered on my face as veins stood out on the policeman's forehead. "We at SAPS will work very hard." He declared. "We will bring buses, trucks, and trains and take you to the river" I presumed he meant the Limpopo. "Once across the river - once across that bridge - no more coming back for you guys. We will deploy helicopters, SAPS in full force, to stop you."
"No more!" He thundered as he threw the asylum document back at my colleague.
He glowered at us for a full half minute breathing heavily. The look on his face was scary. I don't know what was going on his mind, but the chances that it was sympathy or good intentions are about as high as those of finding a glacier in the Sahara.
"You can go." He finally declared. My colleague quickly started the car and drove off. We heaved huge sighs of relief as we left him walking back towards his patrol car.
The question that begs an answer is what are the chances of policemen, who express views such as the above, acting decisively to stop xenophobia motivated criminal rampages from ordinary members of the public. If the inspector at Kempton Park police station or the Polokwane patrolman had found me being neck-laced in the street would they have acted decisively to save me. Were they not going to dilly-dally and wait for the crowd to 'finish the job'.
It is perhaps educative that nobody was ever arrested or convicted for the 2008 xenophobic rampages despite scores of people being murdered. There was also plenty of evidence including photographs showing attackers. There were more than enough leads to allow any competent and correctly motivated police force to find plenty of the attackers and bring them to book. However after my weekend encounter with two police officers, I can't help but think that nothing decisive was done to bring the criminals to book because a lot of the officers are sympathetic to their xenophobic viewpoint.
Sunday, 20 June 2010
Is Zimbabwe a normal country?
I noticed that the BBC couldn't resist taking a negative dig at Zimbabwe when reporting on the magnificent friendly between Zimbabwe and Brazil.
Concluding a piece on the game the BBC's Africa correspondent Andrew Harding wrote "It feels - at least today - like a refreshingly normal, happy country." This sentence suggests that Zimbabwe is normally not a normal country.
While we have our problems we are not the grotesquely abnormal monster that much of the ignorant Western media have convinced themselves we are.
The are many things about Zimbabwe which are much better than in most of the places that Andrew Harding would consider ‘normal’. For example, Zimbabwe has the highest literacy level in sub-Saharan Africa. Until a couple years back school enrolment of school going age children was also the highest. I am not sure about now but many parents are making tremendous effort to make sure their children get a good education.
Zimbabwe also has some of the best sanitation standards found in rural Africa. The Blair toilet we take for granted is a luxury in most countries. Here in South Africa the richest country in Africa, there is a big hullabaloo about toilets being installed for the first time in some parts of urban Cape Town.
The deep well with a hand-winch that we also take for granted in most of Zimbabwe is also a luxury for most in other parts of Africa. It provides clean ground-filtered water and is found at nearly all rural homesteads.
Most Zimbabweans enjoy housing standards well above those found in much of the region and the world. Most homesteads including rural homesteads have a solid burnt brick house with a cement floor, with many having at least two buildings (the traditional and culturally important kitchen hut, and a brick under asbestos 'bedroom').
Most of South Africa's blacks still live in substandard shacks (mukuku) with no sanitation at all. On the other hand, Zimbabweans can't imagine themselves living an entire lifetime in a chitangwena (a shack), but here in South Africa generations have lived and are still living in shacks.
If the same standards that were applied in Operation Murambatsvina (which was supposed to clear Zimbabwe of illegal and substandard structures) were to be applied in other parts of Africa, more than half of the populations would be left homeless. That estimate includes South Africa.
Many Zimbaweans actually have two homes, an urban home and a rural home (kumusha) a feature of our lives the we take very much for granted. However that feature is a very very effective social safety net. Zimbabweans can retreat to their rural homes when things are not going well in the urban setup. In the rural homes the Zimbabweans can live off the land growing what food they need. Relying on their own labour and effort, they even building their own houses using local materials.
This land-based self reliance is one of the important reasons why ownership and control of the land is such a big issue in Zimbabwe. The ability to grow commercial crops on land is a bonus. The real nity-gritty is the ability to grow one's own food.
The logic is simple. If someone grows food which you then have to buy it means you still have to find a job to get money to buy the food. If you can't find the job you go hungry even if there is plenty food. You will be forced to become a beggar. If you have your own piece of land big enough to feed yourself then you need a job only to improve your income flow and not as a basic means of survival. You will never become a beggar because with, access to land you have a chance to use your time to do something for yourself.
Outside of political violence we have extremely low crime rates. We have almost no problems with gangsterism. Contrasts that with supposedly normal countries like Jamaica where gangsters virtually run their own armies and polices forces. Contrast with countries like Mexico where gangsters routinely murder government officials. We don't have serious problems with hard drugs like cocaine and heroin.
Outside of political violence Zimbabwe also provides excellent protection and security for its citizens. It is difficult to imagine a crazed person driving around taking pot shots at people as recently happened in the United Kingdom.
Andrew Harding thinks Zimbabwe is not a normal country but he can walk around knowing that nobody would dare mug him in broad daylight in a crowded street. Such brazen muggings are a daily routine occurrence in places like Johannesburg.
Zimbabwe's politics have been nasty and atrocious for the past decade. As a result the western media have convinced the world, including some Zimbabweans, that they have the short end of the development stick. However a simple look at hard facts is enough to show that Zimbabweans enjoy much better lives than Afghanis, Iraqis, Jamaicans and the majority of black South Africans.
The truth is that based on the usual human development indicators, Zimbawe is more much more ‘normal’ than most of the countries which receive less negative coverage from the Western press.
Concluding a piece on the game the BBC's Africa correspondent Andrew Harding wrote "It feels - at least today - like a refreshingly normal, happy country." This sentence suggests that Zimbabwe is normally not a normal country.
While we have our problems we are not the grotesquely abnormal monster that much of the ignorant Western media have convinced themselves we are.
The are many things about Zimbabwe which are much better than in most of the places that Andrew Harding would consider ‘normal’. For example, Zimbabwe has the highest literacy level in sub-Saharan Africa. Until a couple years back school enrolment of school going age children was also the highest. I am not sure about now but many parents are making tremendous effort to make sure their children get a good education.
Zimbabwe also has some of the best sanitation standards found in rural Africa. The Blair toilet we take for granted is a luxury in most countries. Here in South Africa the richest country in Africa, there is a big hullabaloo about toilets being installed for the first time in some parts of urban Cape Town.
The deep well with a hand-winch that we also take for granted in most of Zimbabwe is also a luxury for most in other parts of Africa. It provides clean ground-filtered water and is found at nearly all rural homesteads.
Most Zimbabweans enjoy housing standards well above those found in much of the region and the world. Most homesteads including rural homesteads have a solid burnt brick house with a cement floor, with many having at least two buildings (the traditional and culturally important kitchen hut, and a brick under asbestos 'bedroom').
Most of South Africa's blacks still live in substandard shacks (mukuku) with no sanitation at all. On the other hand, Zimbabweans can't imagine themselves living an entire lifetime in a chitangwena (a shack), but here in South Africa generations have lived and are still living in shacks.
If the same standards that were applied in Operation Murambatsvina (which was supposed to clear Zimbabwe of illegal and substandard structures) were to be applied in other parts of Africa, more than half of the populations would be left homeless. That estimate includes South Africa.
Many Zimbaweans actually have two homes, an urban home and a rural home (kumusha) a feature of our lives the we take very much for granted. However that feature is a very very effective social safety net. Zimbabweans can retreat to their rural homes when things are not going well in the urban setup. In the rural homes the Zimbabweans can live off the land growing what food they need. Relying on their own labour and effort, they even building their own houses using local materials.
This land-based self reliance is one of the important reasons why ownership and control of the land is such a big issue in Zimbabwe. The ability to grow commercial crops on land is a bonus. The real nity-gritty is the ability to grow one's own food.
The logic is simple. If someone grows food which you then have to buy it means you still have to find a job to get money to buy the food. If you can't find the job you go hungry even if there is plenty food. You will be forced to become a beggar. If you have your own piece of land big enough to feed yourself then you need a job only to improve your income flow and not as a basic means of survival. You will never become a beggar because with, access to land you have a chance to use your time to do something for yourself.
Outside of political violence we have extremely low crime rates. We have almost no problems with gangsterism. Contrasts that with supposedly normal countries like Jamaica where gangsters virtually run their own armies and polices forces. Contrast with countries like Mexico where gangsters routinely murder government officials. We don't have serious problems with hard drugs like cocaine and heroin.
Outside of political violence Zimbabwe also provides excellent protection and security for its citizens. It is difficult to imagine a crazed person driving around taking pot shots at people as recently happened in the United Kingdom.
Andrew Harding thinks Zimbabwe is not a normal country but he can walk around knowing that nobody would dare mug him in broad daylight in a crowded street. Such brazen muggings are a daily routine occurrence in places like Johannesburg.
Zimbabwe's politics have been nasty and atrocious for the past decade. As a result the western media have convinced the world, including some Zimbabweans, that they have the short end of the development stick. However a simple look at hard facts is enough to show that Zimbabweans enjoy much better lives than Afghanis, Iraqis, Jamaicans and the majority of black South Africans.
The truth is that based on the usual human development indicators, Zimbawe is more much more ‘normal’ than most of the countries which receive less negative coverage from the Western press.
Friday, 18 June 2010
Land reform is not ill-conceived
I will never agree that land reform is ill-conceived. Yes it may have been mis-managed by Zanu-PF but land reform remains a necessity, not only in here but in our neighbour South Africa as well. Without equitable distribution of resources, our countries will be saddled with social imbalances that will be a source of conflict for generations to come.
Social and wealth distribution imbalances did not start being sources of conflict only in Africa but since time immemorial. You may be aware of conflicts precipitated by social imbalances such as the French Revolution and the Bolshevik Revolution.
Mr Ncube, you definitely are not going to deny that the current land distribution imbalances were created by unjustifiable and virulently racist and discriminatory policies of colonial governments in their various forms. It is ill-conceived to call land reform ill-conceived.
I believe you may also have witnessed what happened to the fortunes of farmers who were marketing their produce around Boka auction floors. I am sure you will agree with me that they became the centre of economic activity. Is that a bad thing?
The improved economy of farmers at household level will eventually lead to an improved national economy. We have the problem that many people and indeed the government are trying to force the agricultural economy to follow the same patterns as when we had highly centralized and few commercial farmers. The simple logic that due to change in demographic patterns, agricultural economic patterns will of necessity change is lost to most.
The mere change, and disruption associate with the it, of agricultural economic patterns is interpreted as abject failure of land reform by some. In addition, the disruption caused by excessive government control of agricultural marketing (price controls, marketing restrictions, monetary mismanagement) is completely ignored as everything is attributed to the mere act of land reform.
Surely the improvement in agricultural fortunes that was witnessed this year would not have been there of white ownership land was the only and necessary ingredient for agricultural success. The only thing that has changed is that excessive government control has been removed.
Secondly while economic and monetary mismanagement, particularly during the Gideon Gono era, may have considerably lowered our standard of living over the past decade, I believe you are being unnecessarily negative by calling life in Zimbabwe "pathetic existence" as if we have the worst conditions in the world.
What would you call life in Somalia, Darfur, Iraqi, Afghanistan, DRC and even Kyrgyzstan. Having had the opportunity to travel throughout the region, our standard of life is higher than in nearly all neighbouring countries. By standard of living I mean standard of housing, access to sanitation, access to education facilities and having reasonable infrastructure such as roads and clinic buildings.
For example the minimum standard of housing most Zimbabweans enjoy (a round ‘kitchen’ hut with an asbestos roofed 'bedroom' by the side), is higher than the standard of housing the most South African blacks have (a tin shack). What we often perceive as a lowering of living standards is merely a reduction of access to disposable cash.
I believe responsible journalism should encourage Zimbabweans to build on what they have rather than dupe them into believing that they have the shortest end of the stick. Such negativism encourages Zimbabweans to think life is much better elsewhere. As you may be aware many of them then cross our borders into countries like South Africa were many face much worse living conditions than they would have faced at home. They also place a strain on the service delivery in those countries resulting in xenophobia.
I have never supported Zanu-PF having build my political consciousness during the ZUM days. However I will never bad-mouth Zimbabwe in order to spite Robert Mugabe as you seem to be doing.
Social and wealth distribution imbalances did not start being sources of conflict only in Africa but since time immemorial. You may be aware of conflicts precipitated by social imbalances such as the French Revolution and the Bolshevik Revolution.
Mr Ncube, you definitely are not going to deny that the current land distribution imbalances were created by unjustifiable and virulently racist and discriminatory policies of colonial governments in their various forms. It is ill-conceived to call land reform ill-conceived.
I believe you may also have witnessed what happened to the fortunes of farmers who were marketing their produce around Boka auction floors. I am sure you will agree with me that they became the centre of economic activity. Is that a bad thing?
The improved economy of farmers at household level will eventually lead to an improved national economy. We have the problem that many people and indeed the government are trying to force the agricultural economy to follow the same patterns as when we had highly centralized and few commercial farmers. The simple logic that due to change in demographic patterns, agricultural economic patterns will of necessity change is lost to most.
The mere change, and disruption associate with the it, of agricultural economic patterns is interpreted as abject failure of land reform by some. In addition, the disruption caused by excessive government control of agricultural marketing (price controls, marketing restrictions, monetary mismanagement) is completely ignored as everything is attributed to the mere act of land reform.
Surely the improvement in agricultural fortunes that was witnessed this year would not have been there of white ownership land was the only and necessary ingredient for agricultural success. The only thing that has changed is that excessive government control has been removed.
Secondly while economic and monetary mismanagement, particularly during the Gideon Gono era, may have considerably lowered our standard of living over the past decade, I believe you are being unnecessarily negative by calling life in Zimbabwe "pathetic existence" as if we have the worst conditions in the world.
What would you call life in Somalia, Darfur, Iraqi, Afghanistan, DRC and even Kyrgyzstan. Having had the opportunity to travel throughout the region, our standard of life is higher than in nearly all neighbouring countries. By standard of living I mean standard of housing, access to sanitation, access to education facilities and having reasonable infrastructure such as roads and clinic buildings.
For example the minimum standard of housing most Zimbabweans enjoy (a round ‘kitchen’ hut with an asbestos roofed 'bedroom' by the side), is higher than the standard of housing the most South African blacks have (a tin shack). What we often perceive as a lowering of living standards is merely a reduction of access to disposable cash.
I believe responsible journalism should encourage Zimbabweans to build on what they have rather than dupe them into believing that they have the shortest end of the stick. Such negativism encourages Zimbabweans to think life is much better elsewhere. As you may be aware many of them then cross our borders into countries like South Africa were many face much worse living conditions than they would have faced at home. They also place a strain on the service delivery in those countries resulting in xenophobia.
I have never supported Zanu-PF having build my political consciousness during the ZUM days. However I will never bad-mouth Zimbabwe in order to spite Robert Mugabe as you seem to be doing.
Gono is incompetent. Period!
Calls for Gono’s departure are reaching a crescendo with the editor of the Zimbabwe times being asked to provide a platform for publishing allegedly incriminating evidence against him. Many seem to want Gono to go because he can't work with Biti, or he is a member of the JOC.
My view is that Gono should go simply because he is hopelessly incompetent. He is totally ignorant and has survived this far because he is working with equally ignorant if not more ignorant people. Anybody with a single molecule of knowledge in their brain would have realized that Gono was leading us up a creek a long time ago.
He has absolutely no idea how to interpret simple economic data and fit it into a simple economic model. Instead of using numbers to model the economy he tried to force the economy to model numbers. That is a completely wrong approach to simple Mathematical modeling which is the basis of scientific analysis including econometrics.
Gono would set a number such as an exchange rate and then try and force the economy to conform to the number he had set. This was simply wrong. You derive your formulae and numbers so that the numbers reflect certain physical characteristics of the situation you want to mathematically analyze. Taking measurements from the physical situation you then calculate your numbers. You don't set your numbers and then try and force the physical situation to change to conform to your numbers.
Let me try and put it very simply. Suppose you want to measure how much meat you can harvest from a herd of cattle. You know each cow weighs about 250kg and has 4 legs. You then come up with a device for counting the number of legs as cows walk past. If you count 8 legs you know you have 2 cows and a potential 500kg of meat. The model is very simple. The numbers in the model are derived from physical characteristics of the cow. Four legs equal one cow yielding 250kg of meat. Eight legs equal two cows yielding 500kg of meat.
What Gono did with the exchange rate was that he decided that he would define one leg as one cow. He apparently thought that his model would now make eight legs equal eight cows therefore in the end he would get 2000kg of meat!!! Lost to him was that mere definition does not change the physical characteristics of a cow. If one American dollar is worth a thousand Zimbabwe dollars, decreeing that one American dollar be worth a hundred Zimbabwe dollars will not change the physical characteristics of the economy.
The exchange rate is a function of the balance of payments. How much you are producing and selling outside versus how much you are importing by and large determines the value of your money relative to other currencies. If you are producing too little and importing too much your currency devalues. It is a very simple model to understand even without going through Mathematical calculus that real economists use to make accurate predictions of economic trends.
If you reduce production by hindering producers, for example through price controls, at the same time increasing imports by importing all kinds of luxury goods, cars and even simple to make things like scotch carts and ploughs, your currency devalues massively. Setting the exchange rate at some number won't help an iota. It doesn’t matter whether you throw bones, consult tarot cards, peer inside crystal balls or climb up rocks barefoot to come up with the number. The exchange rate is modeling the physical characteristic which is exports versus imports. Its real value will always depend on the balance of payments not wishes of people.
Setting the exchange rate was wrong. Price controls made the situation even worse. To go back to our analogy of a herd of cows, price controls were like splitting the legs of cows into two halves hoping that as each cow passed, you would then count eight legs, and then claim to have 4000kg of meat from two cows. Of course you will discover that after cutting their legs the cows bleed to death leaving you with no meat at all!
After imposing price controls our producers bled to death leaving Gono and the government without a tax base at all.
While many people argue for Gono’s departure based on his political affiliations and his relationship, or lack thereof, with certain politicians, I am of the opinion that the major reason why he should depart is his lack of performance.
To put it simply it doesn’t matter whether Gono is a member of Zanu-PF, the MDC or even the Democratic Party of America. The reason why he should depart is his incompetent management of the monetary system, as well as destructive interference in other areas where he had absolutely no business poking his nose into, such as agriculture.
There are many who defend the governor by claiming that he couldn't have done anything as he was under political pressure. Gono was and is employed to advise politicians correctly, not for HIM to be advised incorrectly by politicians. There are some basic principles of econometrics that cannot be changed by politics, and if he didn't know how to put those across to politicians, it is further proof that he was incompetent.
Who is in control
Honourable guests at the State House, for the swearing in of Zimbabwe’s cabinet, were treated to the biggest circus ever witnessed in diplomatic circles. While that may be amusing, it is however a strong indictment of Zimbabwe’s political leadership.
Clearly politicians are so pre-occupied with acquiring positions of power that the do not care about the dire circumstances the country is in. They do not care about the burden they are imposing on the tax payer and the debilitating consequences of that burden on the ability of the state to deliver essential services to the taxpayer.
The ease with which both sides are quick to add ministers of state on the burden is a big condemnation on the government, as well. Clearly both sides are more concerned with fitting as many of their cronies as they can, on the gravy train. That the country needs to save money seems to be totally and hopelessly lost to them.
If there are any doubts as to who is in control, I think recent events should have made it clear. Firstly human rights activists and MDC supporters under detention have not been released. One man promised that they were not going to spend a day more in prison. Well that day passed and more days are still passing and they are still firmly in jail. Can we therefore say the man who made the promise is in control?
Secondly arrests of opposition figures have been continuing. Roy Bennet is eating sadza with pumpkins in Mutare as we speak.
Tsvangirai seems to be suggesting that Bennet was incarcerated at the behest of rogue elements apposed to the unity deal. I submit that Bennet is in jail because Mugabe wants him there. Which police officer in Zimbabwe would keep a man in jail at the behest of, say Chihuri or Chiwengwa, in the face of a clear and unequivocal message from Mugabe that the man should be released?
The arrest of Bennet is clearly a message to the MDC to tell them, ‘Look here guys, we now have you by the balls.’ It is also a clear message to everyone that Zanu-PF are still in control.
The party’s bigwigs turned up in extra numbers to be sworn in as ministers because they are not prepared to make way for each other. If anybody believes that such people are prepared to easily make way for the MDC, then that person is still happily suckling at their mother’s breast.
It is also fallacy to believe that these people have turned against Mugabe, or that the latter has turned against them. When lions growl at each other it doesn’t mean one of them is now friends with the zebra.
The bottom line is that the route to true freedom for ordinary Zimbabweans has not yet been charted. The supposed captains are too busy charting their own routes to power.
Clearly politicians are so pre-occupied with acquiring positions of power that the do not care about the dire circumstances the country is in. They do not care about the burden they are imposing on the tax payer and the debilitating consequences of that burden on the ability of the state to deliver essential services to the taxpayer.
The ease with which both sides are quick to add ministers of state on the burden is a big condemnation on the government, as well. Clearly both sides are more concerned with fitting as many of their cronies as they can, on the gravy train. That the country needs to save money seems to be totally and hopelessly lost to them.
If there are any doubts as to who is in control, I think recent events should have made it clear. Firstly human rights activists and MDC supporters under detention have not been released. One man promised that they were not going to spend a day more in prison. Well that day passed and more days are still passing and they are still firmly in jail. Can we therefore say the man who made the promise is in control?
Secondly arrests of opposition figures have been continuing. Roy Bennet is eating sadza with pumpkins in Mutare as we speak.
Tsvangirai seems to be suggesting that Bennet was incarcerated at the behest of rogue elements apposed to the unity deal. I submit that Bennet is in jail because Mugabe wants him there. Which police officer in Zimbabwe would keep a man in jail at the behest of, say Chihuri or Chiwengwa, in the face of a clear and unequivocal message from Mugabe that the man should be released?
The arrest of Bennet is clearly a message to the MDC to tell them, ‘Look here guys, we now have you by the balls.’ It is also a clear message to everyone that Zanu-PF are still in control.
The party’s bigwigs turned up in extra numbers to be sworn in as ministers because they are not prepared to make way for each other. If anybody believes that such people are prepared to easily make way for the MDC, then that person is still happily suckling at their mother’s breast.
It is also fallacy to believe that these people have turned against Mugabe, or that the latter has turned against them. When lions growl at each other it doesn’t mean one of them is now friends with the zebra.
The bottom line is that the route to true freedom for ordinary Zimbabweans has not yet been charted. The supposed captains are too busy charting their own routes to power.
Friday, 5 February 2010
Hoey too ignorant to be taken seriously
January 31, 2010
Jupiter Punungwe
RECENTLY Kate Hoey, a British Labour Party MP, wrote an opinion in which she intimated that she didn’t understand why regional leaders such as Jacob Zuma would not just tell President Robert Mugabe to go.Jupiter Punungwe
Kate Hoey
There are a number of factors that she completely overlooks in her analysis of the Zimbabwe situation.
Hoey should not forget that people did massively support Mugabe for his role in getting rid of racist colonial rule. Many Europeans like to fool themselves that colonial rule was not hated that much. Yet even the likes of MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai were card-carrying members of Zanu-PF. Musicians who are now self-exiled like Thomas Mapfumo were busy singing songs in praise of Mugabe.
The truth is that Mugabe, despite all his warts and moles, is still considered to be more beautiful than colonial rule. That is why there has been no violent uprising against him. Do not forget that the very same people who are accused of being docile, now fiercely fought against colonialism twice.
The First Chimurenga was a military conflict that lasted almost two years despite the massive technological mismatch. Not even the Zulu lasted that long in their battles against colonial invasion.
The Second Chimurenga was again a very fierce conflict. By some accounts it was the fiercest fight for independence in Africa, eclipsing by far the Mau Mau uprising in Kenya and the Algerian liberation war. It is simple logic to deduce that such fierce wars are not fought by docile people. We Zimbabweans are definitely not docile.
As I write this my brother was expelled from a Zimbabwe university for student activism. He is now on an MDC arranged scholarship in the Netherlands. Yet my father is an open supporter of Mugabe’s land policies. A cousin was at one time proposed as an MDC candidate in parliamentary elections. Yet my aunt was an elected Zanu-PF councillor at the time.
If Zimbabweans were to abandon the so called docility, whom would they fight? Would anyone of them ever be able to lay a hand on Robert Mugabe or even his son, Chatunga Bellamyne? Would the fight not be about son facing father, mother facing daughter and brother facing brother? What would be the result of such a fratricidal conflagration?
The run-up to the June 27 election was very violent. While controlling all the levers of power, Zanu-PF unleashed unprecedented violence on the community. The MDC tried to retaliate, but they were simply strategically outmatched in terms of controlling the instruments of violence.
What many outside observers may not know is that the parties did not manage to set people living in the same area upon each other. It may have happened here and there but most of the violence involved transporting truckloads of youths, plied with liberal amounts of beer and cash to areas they did not live in. Even the soldiers used in the violence were never deployed to their home areas. In cases where violence involved people living in close proximity one can almost always trace it to long standing feuds.
In the 1970s people left school and gainful employment to join the liberation struggle with absolutely no promise of any kind of reward, except liberating the country. That today’s ‘activists’ have to be plied with money and beer is a clear indication that they are opportunistic and not passionate about their cause.
The second fact is that most Africans, including many black Zimbabweans in opposition circles, are not quite as incensed by the plight of white farmers as the Europeans are.
That Zimbabwean society doesn’t seem to care much about the fate of white farmers, is a product of colonial segregationist policies. Segregation bred a ‘them and us’ mentality. Privilege was reserved for whites during colonial times. As a result, many black Zimbabweans simply don’t think whites can ever come to a point of needing succour from the community. They are perceived as always being wealthy. There is also a perception that they can always fly off to England while the blacks largely have nowhere else to go and live comfortably.
Hence the strong feelings about ‘our’ land, ‘their’ land being in England.
True the situation is dire for white farmers. Many are losing lifetimes of hard work and dedication. However, what is not true is that their workers are now much worse off than they were before. The wages they earned amounted to nothing and the opportunities they had to improve themselves amounted to nothing. So if the white farmer goes his departure is not such a big impact for the worker.
They just join their peasant cousins. The lifestyles of their cousins were actually better off. So in a way one can say farm workers are finally going to be better off by being forced to become peasants. I am not being cynical, that is how bad the conditions of farm workers were.
Apparently Hoey believes that it us up to outsiders, namely President Zuma, to tell Zimbabweans what to do. The problem we have in Zimbabwe right now is that the Zimbabwean population cannot agree among themselves and this is reflected in how leadership has evolved in the country.
A substantial number of people support Robert Mugabe and a substantial number support Morgan Tsvangirai. More precisely a substantial number oppose Robert Mugabe and Tsvangirai seems to be the only viable alternative at the moment. The ideal solution to Zimbabwe’s problems is to get these two sides to work together without violence. To think that outsiders can simply tell one of them to simply disappear is not only impractical, but reeks of an ill-informed colonial mentality.
Both sides in the Zimbabwe situation spew propaganda. The trouble with the likes of Hoey is that they swallow hook line and sinker the propaganda of only one side. One of my A-level science teachers taught me a very important lesson. When conducting experiments never ignore your directly observed results if they don’t conform to conventional theories. Least of all never try and force your results to conform to conventional theories.
Rather seek the explanation of why they differ.
Despite conventional thinking, Zuma cannot tell Mugabe to disappear. Even if Mugabe were to openly declare a coup, Zuma has absolutely no power to intervene. Any adventures he might try would definitely disrupt the entire region. The results will not be a quick and clean disappearance of Mugabe, but a regional conflagration with no predictable outcome.
Zimbabwe might have sprung from Rhodesia but Zimbabwe is not Rhodesia. The people who claim that Zuma can do to Mugabe what John Vorster did to Ian Smith are simply not using their logic. Ian Smith was hemmed in on all sides by hostile neighbours. Mozambique was hosting Mugabe’s ZANLA forces. Zambia was hosting Joshua Nkomo’s ZIPRA forces. Incidentally ZIPRA and the ANC’s Umkhonto weSizwe (MK) were sharing the same camps, both being sponsored by the Soviets. Botswana was an important transit point for MK as well as ZIPRA.
Rhodesia was also under United Nations sanctions sponsored by the British. Only South Africa was friendly with Rhodesia to the extent of sending soldiers to fight with the Rhodesians. In short Rhodesia was mortally dependent on South Africa. The Harold MacMillan winds of change had become hurricanes of change buffeting Rhodesia from all directions except South Africa.
Ian Smith had no other friends in the region except John Vorster.
People like Hoey who think Zuma can snap his fingers and Mugabe will then just fall, like a bug off the woodwork, are simply too ignorant to be taken seriously.
Firstly, Mugabe is not hemmed in on all borders. In fact, governments like those of Frelimo in Mozambique and Kabila in the DRC owe Mugabe a debt of gratitude for saving them from demise. Mugabe’s army fought off the apartheid South Africa sponsored RENAMO to stop them from overrunning Mozambique. Frelimo is ruling today because of that critical Mugabe intervention.
Mugabe’s army again drove away Rwanda and Uganda sponsored rebels from the outskirts of Kinshasa to save Laurent Kabila from overthrow. Today his son, Joseph, is still ruling. Only a preposterous fool will believe such bonds tied in blood can easily be broken because someone in London says they should be broken. Only a fool can believe that Zuma can completely ignore such regional bonds, and even ignore the history of his own ANC and their close ties with Zanu-PF.
When Zuma has tea with the Queen, I am sure he will make every effort to make the right noises for the Queen’s and her subjects’ ears. However, I also know that it will never go beyond noises.
Not only do leaders like Hoey hopelessly misread the situation, but they allow themselves to be led up a creek by people who claim to be fiercely opposed to Mugabe but are merely opportunists after making money from Western sponsorship. Zimbabweans have shown in the past that they can fight for their freedom. Yet parties like the MDC seem totally incapable of organizing a real fight. People like Hoey should understand the reasons pretty well.
In 1965 the British would not fight the Rhodesians militarily because they were kith and kin. Today the MDC have no stomach to fight Mugabe militarily because of the kith and kin factor as well. While Tsvangirai himself has made so much money from opposition politics that he no longer needs a piece of land to grow his own food, I do not think his peasant relatives in Buhera are in the same position. I know they will eventually persuade him to get some land for them. It might take years but it will come.
The solution to Zimbabwe’s problems does not lie in merely giving Mugabe the red card. The biggest threat to Zimbabwe right now is corruption. Zanu-PF are masters of the game, having been in there for some time. The accusations flying around in the MDC over corrupt ministers, councilors and branch leaders suggest that the MDC have quickly seized the ropes of corruption as well. Giving one fox a red card to make room for others will not make your chickens safe.
Mugabe’s red card will never be handed to him.
Saturday, 23 January 2010
More to land issue than Mugabe’s land grab
IT seems for many people Zimbabwe’s land issue has been reduced to a little more than ‘Mugabe land grab’ issue. The land question has shaped Zimbabwe’s politics for the last century. It is being extremely short-sighted and naïve to reduce it, for no reason other than anti-Mugabe emotions, to a simple Mugabe land grab problem. No matter how large he might loom in the sight of some, the land issue is much bigger than Robert Mugabe.
I once came upon a story about an elephant and a villager. A hardworking villager built his hut at the edge of large savannah woodlands. One day a mighty elephant came charging out of the forest. It wrenched the farmer out of his hut and hurled him aside. It then barged into the hut and somehow managed to fit its large frame inside.
The puny little villager tried very hard to get the enormous elephant out of his hut. First he pulled at the tail, and then he pulled at the trunk. He hung on one of the tusks, then the other. He tried his best to wrap his arms around a leg and tug. But he simply couldn’t make the huge elephant budge.
As he escalated his efforts to liberate his hut he took a spear and started to stab the elephant. The skin was too thick. Then he lit a fire under the elephant’s belly.
“Hoo! Stop! Stop!” shouted the elephant. “Let us make peace.”
So the villager entered into negotiations with the elephant.
“Here is the agreement” proposed the elephant. “I stay where I am, but I will allow you some space in the hut.”
“But it was my hut in the first place, and given the amount of space you have already taken for yourself I won’t have enough space” complained the villager.
“I am willing to move some of my limps to give you more room. But we do it only when I am willing. Also you have to compensate me for loss of space.”
The villager was not happy with the terms but what could he do. The elephant was too big and fighting it out of the hut would be too much of a cost and maybe even result in the destruction of the hut itself. He forlornly and half-heartedly nodded his head.
“That’s it my man!” whooped the elephant happily. “Now we are friends. To make sure we know which space belongs to whom here, take this.”
He whipped out and brandished a piece of paper.
“This is my hut occupancy certificate, this is proof that I own the hut” he said pointing a tusk at the piece of paper in the villager’s hands.
“This piece of paper certifies that I own the hut. If there is a disagreement my friend Mr Rhinoceros will listen to our arguments and pass judgment. That way we will maintain the rule of law.” The elephant explained.
“But where was the rule of law when you were pulling me out of the hut,” the villager complained.
“My friend let’s forget the past. Let’s look to the future. After all you didn’t have the rule of law yourself did you?” the elephant asked.
“No, but I had my customs and system of rule. Everyone in my hut lived by those….”
“Your customs were primitive and backward my friend” the elephant intoned, interrupting the villager. “The certificate of hut occupancy I have introduced is modern, advanced and state of the art.”
“But it leaves you with all the good space. Besides you have taken so much space that me and my children are packed like sardines in a little corner.”
“Look my friend,” said the elephant, “You shouldn’t complain. You have an advanced state of the art system in your hands all because of me.”
Robert Mugabe is not even the villager in this story. The villager, Zimbabwe’s people, still needs equitable land redistribution urgently. The debilitating effects of racist pieces of legislation passed by colonial settlers such as the Land Apportionment Act, the Land Husbandry Act, the Land Tenure Act and others still need to be countered and reversed.
What Zanu-PF chefs are doing, taking white farms and mostly occupying them themselves is like a hippo butting out the elephant and occupying the hut. The villager still needs his hut back.
Some people are currently so incensed by the hippo butting out the elephant. They are focusing solely on the hippo and forgetting the original sin of the elephant. I hope they are equally incensed by the elephant wrenching out the villager.
I am sure we all know that the practice of kicking people out of their homes with only the clothes on their backs was not invented by Robert Mugabe and Zanu-PF. I believe I don’t have to explain again where the popular name for a squatter shack in Zimbabwe, chitangwena, comes from. What happened to the people of Chief Rekai Tangwena was actually the tail end of colonial displacement. All the people who are now settled in the massive former native reserves (maruzevha) were forced there without any compensation and barely the clothes on their backs.
A very recent example of the precarious and insecure tenure afforded to those in the native reserves by colonial laws is the plight of the Chiadzwa people. After discovery of diamonds literally in their fields, these people are now being evicted from an area they have lived for generations. They only depend on the goodwill of government for compensation.
Their biggest problem is they don’t own the land they live on. Remember native reserves were originally Crown Land (land owned by the Queen), then they became TTLs (Tribal Trust Lands) after UDI, and lastly Communal Lands (after independence) owned by the government.
Unlike white farmers who were granted title deeds and can take their cases as far as the SADC tribunal, the villagers do not have and never had title deeds. The villagers are victims of a system designed in colonial times to disempower the natives. The government of the day could evict them as and when it wished. What leaders like Robert Mugabe have done is usurp the powers of colonial masters without enhancing the rights of the people at all.
The people of Chief Rekai Tangwena faced the eviction problem under Ian Smith. Now the people of Chiadzwa are facing the same problem under Robert Mugabe. The whole import of this is that land reform has not been properly done. Land rights and security of tenure have not been passed on to the people, the victims of colonialism. Now everything is being left to the whim of politicians.
Let me hasten to clarify that this is not an attempt to defend Robert Mugabe. I am simply trying to make it clear that there is a huge mass beneath the tip of the iceberg. Melting the tip will only make more of it emerge. Let us not forget the entire context and complexity of the land problem in our haste to demonize Robert Mugabe.
As far as I am concerned both sides are taking people for granted. An honestly pursued land reform program would see white farmers losing the bulk of their land to peasants, anyway. The peasants are definitely not in, and will never be in a position to pay full compensation for the land at present market values. Given that they form the bulk of the population, there is very little chance that the government will ever collect enough tax to pay for the land. In my view this reduces the “willing seller willing buyer” principle to a mere ruse to slow down land reform in the hope that it will eventually fizzle out living most peasants without land, and the colonial occupiers enjoying use of the land.
On the other hand the current black elite have their eyes firmly on personal enrichment. They are clearly hoping to skim off the cream of the land and give it to themselves or have already done so. This scenario again leaves peasants severely shortchanged.
In short none of the two chief antagonistic sides, the white former colonial settlers or the ruling black elite is particularly keen on an honest fair and transparent solution. Both would like to see their respective privileges preserved on enhanced. Unfortunately preserving the privileges of either amounts to doing nothing concrete for the masses.
One of the great weaknesses of Mugabe’s opponents is that they hopelessly chew their words when it comes to specifying when and how land reform is going to happen. Talk of land audits and properly doing things does not assure the peasant that he is going to get a bigger piece of land now. Mugabe’s policy of allowing people to just invade land means that at least some people have access to land now. As more time passes it is going to be more difficult to remove them from that land without use of violence.
The question of who should pay compensation is simple if it is honestly approached. Whoever inherited the British South Africa Company (BSAC) which claimed ownership of Zimbabwe in 1890 should be pursued and made to pay. Alternatively whoever gave the BSAC ‘permission’ to own Zimbabwe must be held responsible. The BSAC were given ‘permission’ by means of a Royal Charter. Surely one doesn’t need to be the Scotland Yard sleuth Sherlock Holmes to figure out who issued that charter and must therefore bear primary responsibility for compensation.
Lastly, let me again express my utter disgust at the notion that blacks need white farmers if they are to avoid starvation. Calling such assertions hogwash would be insulting the bathwaters of pigs. Having grown up in rural Zimbabwe, not for a single day did I witness families around us depending on white farmers for food. Black Zimbabweans have always worked hard to grow their own food and still work hard to do so. The greatest impediments to food security are weather patterns and lack of access to adequate land. It is definitely not lack of the work ethic or skill.
Around 1906 one of the native commissioners reported that the major reason natives did not want to work in the mines and farms set up by settlers was that the average native had his good patch of land on which he grew enough for his needs and therefore saw no need to work for the settlers.
Indeed those who are familiar with the history of Zimbabwe’s urbanization will know that most local people shunned living in towns and depended on their rural homes for livelihood which is why most of the early suburbs in Harare like Mbare, Old Highfields, Mabvuku, Dzivarasekwa and Tafara have houses mostly owned by Zimbabweans of Malawian origin. Do people ever ask themselves what happened for these people to be forced to stop depending on agriculture for their livelihood.
People who attribute Zimbabwe’s agricultural problems solely to the eviction of white farmers are deliberately and dishonestly choosing to leave the bigger part of the picture hidden. The problem of idiosyncratic controls on commercial activity, including price controls on agricultural inputs and commodities, restrictions in the movement and trade of agricultural commodities was a big disincentive to agricultural producers.
Even if the white farmers had not been disrupted, Zimbabwe would still have not produced enough food with the kind of price controls and restrictions that were introduced by the government from around 2003 to 2008.
Saturday, 28 October 2006
Thursday, 26 October 2006
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)