How The Zimbabwe Government is Killing Industry

To make soap you need caustic soda which is imported. Organic oils are locally available. If you export soap but that government takes 85% of you hard currency and gives bond notes you will simply be out of business after a few batches because nobody outside Zimbabwe will sell you caustic soda for bond notes.

That is how government has been killing local industries. I know for a fact that Unilever, then Lever Brothers, was exporting soap and other consumables from their factory here. They actually made plans to upgrade that factory to a regional manufacturing hub for Southern, Central and East Africa.

How ever that is when Gono started his crazy monetary policies and exchange controls. Around 2000 which eventually led to hyperinflation starting around 2004. Unilever then simply upgraded the factory in Kenya and transferred engineers from Zimbabwe there. Several of my classmates were send to Kenya.

Heavy handed ignorant tactics by those in power are the main reason why the economy tanked. Where else in the world does government pass laws overnight. You wake up one morning and your goods already in customs suddenly need a permit. Or you wake and your hard currency is gone replaced with worthless numbers and paper.

Nobody in their right senses can run a business in Zimbabwe because you don't know what government is dreaming and on which side of the bed they will wake up. Only people after a very quick buck or those with massive capital who can afford to arm twist or eat together with politicians can do business here.

The startups are buried before they are born. You certainly can't plan more than a year or two ahead because government policy us fickle, unpredictable and emotional rather than logical.

Leader of The Opposition: The Facts.

Frankly speaking I do not know who Munangagwa and his foot-soldiers think they are fooling when then mention appointing an unelected person to become 'leader of the opposition' in order 'to meet commonwealth standards'.

Munangagwa's Criteria For Picking Chamisa is Unheard of in the Commonwealth

What Commonwealth standards? Let me give the example of a neighbour. The DA has been the official opposition in South Africa for a long time.

In 2009 the leader of the DA, Hellen Zille, chose to become the Premier of Western Cape provinces. That is the equivalent of governor.

She resigned her position as MP. The position of leader of the opposition in parliament was then taken over by Lindiwe Mazibuko a then serving MP. When Lindiwe Mazibuko resigned as MP the role of leader of the opposition was taken over by Mmusi Maimane who at the time was not leader of the DA. This demonstrates that leader of the opposition is current member of parliament.

In other Commonwealth countries the situation is the same. In Canada Andrew James Scheer is current member of parliament. In the United Kingdom the current Leader of the Opposition is Jeremy Corbyn, leader of the Labour Party, who was elected to the leadership of the Labour Party on 12 September 2015. He is also the serving member of parliament for Islington North. In New Zealand, Simon Bridges, current leader of the opposition is MP for Tauranga. In Australia William Richard Shorten is elected MP for Maribymong and elected leader of the Labour Party of Australia.

I will not mention Commonwealth countries like Rwanda and Uganda where leaders of the opposition are regularly thrown into jail.

The leader of the opposition is elected by the parliamentary caucus

Another very important factor is that in the countries I mentioned above, the leader of the opposition is elected by the parliamentary caucus of the opposition from among themselves. They are not nominated by the ruling party.

Normally the caucus elect the leader of the largest opposition party. That is because if a leader, during an election fail to win a seat, or in some cases fail to lead the party to victory, they resign. In the case of South Africa where the leader of the opposition chose another government post serving MPs were given the opportunity after being elected by parliamentary caucus.

Therefore when Munangagwa talks about leader of the opposition reserved for Chamisa, it is just dirty patronage, not a commonwealth standard. Why not give the opposition caucus in Zimbabwe parliament the opportunity to elect whoever they wish, which is the true commonwealth standard.

Chamisa is not even elected leader of the MDC Alliance. He grabbed power with the help of a violent youth militia, The Vanguard, such that most of the very same people Munangagwa is seeking to convince he is democratic, stopped or reduced sponsorship of the MDC. The British in particular were clearly not impressed with Chamisa which is why they swung towards Munangagwa. Now Munangagwa wants to go and collect garbage that has been thrown away by the British and use it to impress them.

It serves to demonstrate to those Commonwealth countries that pioneered the concept of leader of the opposition that Munangagwa and his foot-soldiers do not understand what they are talking about. Ndi vana tongoindawo. They are just band-wagoners.

If they are not band-wagoners then it is nothing but a crude and unintelligent attempt at deception.

It is certainly deception to claim that Zimbabwe will be allowed back into the Commonwealth merely because a leader of the opposition has been allowed a slot at the pigsty trough by being given government perks. The Animal Farm story does not change simply because of one pig.

Britain is currently willing to jump into bed with anything because of the pending divorce from Europe

Western countries that pushed for Zimbabwe's expulsion did so because they were peeved over the property rights of their kith and kin being taken. Farms and mineral rights. Have those property rights been restored? If anything recent American renewal of sanctions shows that little has changed in Western policy towards Zimbabwe.

The way the leader of the opposition issue has been handles betrays a shallow understanding not only of democracy, but of global politics as well.

The only saving grace Munangagwa might have is that Britain is currently willing to jump into bed with anything because of the pending divorce from Europe.

Sexist and Tribalist

For me the move to pluck Chamisa out of political oblivion and hand him government perks, also reveals a sexist and tribalist trend in Munangagwa's behaviour. Soon after the death of Tsvangirai, Munangagwa rushed to hand over party disbursement funds meant for the MDC-T to Chamisa.

He deliberately sidelined Thokozani Khupe who is a woman and ethnic Kalanga. She was the democratically elected vice president to Tsvangirai in the MDC-T. Apart from that the leadership contest of the MDC-T had not been legally settled. A sign that Chamisa would have lost that contest is that eventually he chose to form his own party, the MDC Alliance. He has not returned the money that he unfairly grabbed from the MDC-T with the help of Munangagwa led Zanu-PF.

Now Ngwena is rushing to hand over perks to Chamisa. By the Commonwealth standard he is touting, those perks should go to Thabitha Khumalo, another woman and ethnic Ndebele. However the President of Zimbabwe seems intent on dribbling past Thabitha the same way he dribbled past Thokozani.

Ingonyama: The Meaning of Trust Land.

Recently land reform has been a very hot topic in South Africa which some people threatening war over land held specifically by the Ingonyama Trust.

The Origins Of Trust Lands

Under British colonial rule land that was claimed by the British empire but had not been granted to a specific (legal) person was deemed to be held in trust by the crown. It was the Queen's land or the King's land.

Many native reserves that were prevalent in British colonies were created on such land. The trust lands system was specifically designed to deny rights to the native occupiers of the land.

Anyone who was occupying that land did so, 'upon the grace of the Crown'. That grace could be withdrawn at any time and the occupiers had no legal recourse. They could not, and still cannot, take the matter to any court. If they do, they are at an automatic disadvantage because they do not have a registered deed to prove they own the land.

On the other hand, land that was not trust land (private land), was held under deed of grant or deed of lease by (legal) persons. Such deed was registered, in jurisdictions based on British law, by an office called the registrar of deeds.

Under racist, sexist and segregationist systems that prevailed under colonialism, legal persons could only be white males or their companies. White women were not legal persons despite what many assume.

Trust Lands After Colonialism

When the British gave independence to their colonies land held in trust by the crown was handled depending on how the former colony constituted itself afterwards. Some states which continue to recognise the British crown as a leader such as Jamaica, Canada, New Zealand, Australia among others, the land is still called the Queen's land.

However note that the respective governments have got full authority over that land. Occupiers deal with their elected government, not the Queen or her Lords, when administering the land. The governments have got authority to grant title to persons on that land. That is a key difference with the Ingonyama Trust.

In those countries that chose to become republics the trust land was transferred to ownership of the state. In the case of my country when Ian Smith unilaterally declared independence from Britain in 1965, the land was taken over by government and became Tribal Trust Lands (TTLs). Upon proper independence in 1980 the land was re-christened Communal Lands but remained under ownership of the state.

The Case Of South Africa

In the case of South Africa, after gaining nominal independence in 1910, the Bantu Land Act was passed in 1913. That act created 'native reserves' in which nominal tenure was vested in chiefs. The act specifically prohibited the natives' land, at the time about 7% of the total land area, from being bought, sold, rented or used as surety (security for loans).

John Dube and Sol Plaatje (founders of what is now the ANC) cut their teeth opposing the Bantu Land Act.

The act also banned blacks from renting, sharecropping or farming on land reserved for whites. That ban is the reason why there were no black farmers in apartheid South Africa not competence as racists like to insinuate.

Under apartheid native land went through several transformations, and a slight increase, most of it eventually becoming Bantustans which the apartheid government called independent states, but nobody else in the world recognised.

The Complication of KwaZulu-Natal

Upon majority rule in 1994 bantustans were incorporated into South Africa with much of the land reverting to state ownership except for one key exception. In what was to become KwaZulu-Natal, communal land was handed over to the Ingonyama Trust.

This communal land included what had previous fallen under the former British Natal colony. It is not clear to me but it appears the Ingonyama Trust is a legal person that can sell or rent land under its control. This is a significant departure from the provisions and spirit of the original Bantu Lands Act.

It is a potential future complication that land that had not been part of Zululand or even historically part of Zulu territories, was handed over to the Zulu King. Especially given that the Zulu king is talking as if that land belongs exclusively to ethnic Zulus. Those who are not ethnic Zulus living on that land may find themselves targeted in future.

Much of the land handed over to Ingonyama Trust (South of Durban) was traditionally Xhosa land, with big portions being Sotho, Swati and Ndebele.

Tribalising the issue only complicates matters but does not solve the problem of lack of legal rights even for Zulus. It is also likely to complicate things for the Zulu king because other ethnic groups may not be comfortable with being treated as being second class to Zulus.

Already noises are being made about Umshinini Trust land, that was held in a trust recognised by the British crown before 1910.

The Risks Of Trust Land To Home Owners

There is one thing that remains the same even for Zulus. Those who have occupied and lived on that land for centuries, if not millenia, still do not have full rights to their homes and other land. As before, their rights are subject to the whims (grace is a euphimism) of a trustee.

There is always significant risk to the occupier of land held in trust on their behalf. Tinpot dictatorship is the least of them. They are subject to the whims of the trustee and I will cite examples from my home country Zimbabwe and neighbouring Botswana.

In the 1960s the Tangwena clan from the remote east of then Rhodesia were evicted from their lands by the Rhodesian government. When they resisted their homes were bulldozed. They still refused to leave and built plastic shacks. To this day a mukuku is called a chiTangwena in Zimbabwe.

More recently diamonds were discovered in Marange communal lands also in the east of Zimbabwe. The Zimbabwe government forcibly removed some of the occupiers and handed over the land to various companies, most Chinese, for diamond mining. Those who were willing were relocated to an area called Odzi, which was more humane.

However the diamonds have not benefited the community and recently Zimbabwe's parliament was investigating what happen to more than US$15 billion worth of diamonds.

Still in Zimbabwe a few years back, two traditional rulers (madziShe) lost a court case, with costs, after they challenged the leasing of a hilltop that was the burial ground of ancient rulers of their clan, to a local cellphone company to build a transmitter station.

In Botswana there have been complaints about the behaviour of the trustees of what was the Tati Concession Trust. That land constitutes the entire North Eastern district of present day Botswana. There have been grumblings that Sir Seretse Khama, the first president of Botswana, entered into an agreement that benefited his family.

Corruption and Tribalism: Elephants in the Hut

The main risk of living on trust land is that the land does not belong to you. If you own a house on 300 square metres in say Daveyton, you are actually better off than Jacob Zuma and his 250 million rand Nkandla because neither the state nor a trustee can come and kick you off without a court order.

However throw in corruption and tribalism then you have dynamite with a lit fuse in your hands. In the case of Zimbabwe, Marange was handed over to the Chinese primarily because the political leaders of Zimbabwe were thrown scraps of cash. Although not worth as much as the diamonds looted, those scraps represented personal fortunes to the individuals involved.

In Botswana many complaints and even a political party, The Botswana People's Party, has been formed over the issue of Tati Concession Land. The Khama family is accused of smothering attempts to tackle it. Claims are that this is because of a personal agreement between first president of Botswana Seretse Khama and those who inherited the concession lands. Indeed the current manager of the Tati Land Board, Ogaisitse Khama ,is member of the Khama family.

What puts a hint of tribalism in the Botswana case is that the Tati Concession is on land that traditionally was occupied by the Kalanga ethnic group, who like the Venda spill into Zimbabwe. The Tati Concession was never part of the Bechuanaland Protectorate but was administered by the same British gorvenor because the other concession, the Rudd Concession (loosely the rest of Zimbabwe) was being administered by the British South Africa Company of Cecil John Rhodes. The British government felt it not proper to hand over a second concession to the company.

A few years back Botswana deported a man to Zimbabwe despite him having lived on the Botswana side of the border for 70 years. The insinuation is that the Kalanga should go back to Zimbabwe. I think the Venda of South Africa know the story very well.

In South Africa it has been reported that Ingonyama Trust has send letters demanding rent from those occupying what was previously the Umshinini Trust land. I hope those demands have got nothing to do with that those people are Xhosas not Zulus.

The Way Foward

Trust lands were created to disempower natives by denying them title to the land they lived on. Obviously the solution is to give title to the natives. Most post colonial governments shirk taking this step. Empowering natives means less political control over them, and less ability to manipulate their votes.

It is also an administratively and logistically monumental task. Every piece of land granted to a person based on occupation needs to be surveyed, disputes adjudicated and proper cadastral records established often for the very first time.

The only state that I know to have been doing this is Malawi. Villagers can apply to the ministry of lands to have their pieces of land surveyed and then be given title deeds.

I do not see how this can be done in South Africa without first transferring the land to government, the democratically elected representatives of the people. The government can then administer the granting of deeds properly and democratically.

It does not help that the language used is that of 'taking' land from Ingonyama Trust. King Zwelithini has understood, or twisted, that to mean taking land from Zulus. Yet the truth is the exact opposite of that. It is a necessary step give full land rights to all Zulus, not just one Zulu.

If the land is transferred to the KZN government, which is the elected representative of Zulus (among other ethnicities) that land will actually be under the control of all Zulus for the first time since Cetshwayo, the last independent king of the Zulu.

The South African government should take the step of giving title to individual occupiers of former communal lands.

Protect Universal Suffrage

My understanding is that our constitution is based on UNIVERSAL suffrage. That means EVERY citizen has a right to vote. That is what Zanu-PF (and PF-ZAPU) fought for, which is why one of the slogans was one man one vote.

Has our constituion now removed UNIVERSAL suffrage and replaced it with qualified suffrage. Qualified suffrage makes use of a voters roll with anyone not on there not allowed to vote.

The Rhodesian system used qualified suffrage with the qualifiying criteria being race. Later they introduced a B roll where the qualifying criteria was now property ownership for blacks. The A roll was exclusively for whites.

The property clause automatically disqualified most blacks who lived in native reserves. The property there was the Queen's Land, later Tribal trust lands. Also the Group Area act prevented blacks from owning property in areas where title deeds where issued. For the born frees Group Areas act barred blacks from owning propery in the suburbs (Waterfalls, Borrowdale, Chisipite even Southerton and Ardbennie). The areas for well to do blacks were Marimba Park in Mufakose and Old Highfield where Nkomo's house was.

So if now the constitution says someone has to be on a voters roll for them to vote, does this mean Zanu-PF has backtracked on what it fought for?

Please do not tell me that there is no qualifying criteria there is. Someone has to have money for transport and time available to go to the registration centres.

It also means gravely sick people are disqualified because someone has to be healthy enough to travel to the registration centres. If a person is bedridden or in hospital at the time of registration and inspection.

I need answers from Zanu-PF leaders, do we no longer have universal suffrage. If you say we do, please explain how the current system caters for that.

Remember universal suffrage means everyone qualifies to vote in the presidential election. It is only in the council and constituency elections where the address needs to be known for ward and constituency purposes. Even then someone can declare their intended voting ward at the time of voting. As long as they are prevented from voting in another ward (by the indellible ink) it is fine.

The proof of address requirement is a way of sneaking the property qualification used by the Rhodesians back into voting system. For you to have proof of address you need to have a property registered in your name.

Yes I do known that a letter from the headman or chief is acceptable but that means your voting right is now under the control and subject to the whims of another person. That is one of the reasons why chiefs and headman have started to increasingly assert control over the voting activities of people living in their areas. If I give you the letter (proof of address) that enables you to vote in the first place then you should do my biding shouldn't you?

At the very least I have a platform to tell you what my interests are (who to vote for) and if you do not take care of my interests why should I take care of yours? Besides the possibility of denying you proof of address next time, there are lots of other things like when drawing up lists for aid and food distribution.

Opposition parties complain about chiefs and headman influencing voters, yet they are the main advocates of a system that gives them direct power over voters.

The biometric voter registration fallacy

If you listen to the discourse coming out of Zimbabwe BVR (biometric voter registration) is a magic bullet that is going to prevent all rigging. My countrymates, not so fast. If anything the use of biometrics is going to lead to more doubt and disputes than usual.

What is biometrics.

Biometrics is the science of analysing human traits using digital techniques. The most commonly analyzed traits are fingerprints, although facial and iris recognition can also be performed.

Biometric involves capturing and digitising an image of the desired feature and than using computer procesing to store the feature or compare it to an existing database.

Compter techniques used include pattern matching and neural networks. Neural networks belong to the area of computing called artificial intelligence.

Besides biometrics neural networks are also used in other areas of image processing such as automatic number plate recognition.

In my career I have worked with both number plate recognition and biometric technology. I developed an average speed calculation system based on automatic number plate recognition. I did not say average speed enforcement, I said calculation so if you got a ticket please don't blame me.

I have worked with biometrics in identity verification and access control. That is systems that open doors and gates if you are recognised.

The first point I would like to stress is that pattern matching whether neural networrk based or otherwise, is not exact science. It is a statistical endeavour where you come up with a probable match within a certain degree of confidence. The confidence level is never ever 100%. Top of the range systems usually have a confidence level of about 95%. That is there is a 95% probability that whatever result it comes up with is correct.

If you have ever been enroled on a fingerprint system you will notice that they will always ask you to go and test your finger immediately. Every 20 or so people the enrolment will fail and they will take another sample.

The 5% probability of being wrong is not a small number. Out of 5 million voters that is 250 thousand people. Or 6 constiuencies.

Mind you that is based on ideal conditions. That is you have high quality equipment, operating in conditions that are not harsh with consistent samples.

In real life biometrics is even less accurate. In rural African conditions biometrics is even worse.

First there is usually no mains electricity. Batteries discharge and as the voltage get's lower sensors loose their accuracy. Often the roads are rough dust roads wich means equipment is shaken and contaminated with dust increasing the probability of failure.

Human features also change for various reasons. A snall cut on your finger changes your fingerprint profile. If you touch hot surfaces it may also deform your fingerprints. I have heard of people rubbing their fingers on hot irons or horplate stoves before going to the department of home affairs to apply for documents. Apparently it is a reliable way of making sure the system doesn't recognise your fingerprints if you have an unsavoury previous record.

What this boils down is that a high number of people are likely to experience problems with fingerprint matching even if they successfully registered.

If those people are allowed to vote, somebody will cry foul. If they are barred, somebody will cry foul as well. In the Zimbabwe context this means the stage is already set for the elections to be hotly disputed. Mark my words.

By far the best way of ensuring all elligible people vote and preventing double-voting is having an accurate citizen registry and using indellible ink. Of which Zimbabwe has one of the highest citizen registration coverages in Africa. Almost everyone in Zimbabwe has got an ID.

Lastly let us talk about who uses BVR in in the world. None of the technologically advanced countries who manufacture the equipment. The European countries, Russia, Russia, China - all these do not use BVR.

Only about 50 countries in the world have adopted BVR and nearly all of them are in Africa and a few other poor Asian and Latin American countries.

The reason for that is that most poor countries are run by politicians who know little about technology and thus can be easily sold duds. An example is buying snow-ploughs while being told they are graders.

The Many Injustices

On 24 May 2018 Donald Trump pardoned Jack Johnson, the first black heavyweight boxing Champion of the world. Thanks to the efforts of Hollywood 'boxing' great Rocky Bilbao, errr Sylvester Stallone.

Johnson was convicted and served 10 months in prison, in 1912, for dating a white woman.

In Trump's own words 'some might consider' this sentence to be a racial injustice. This suggest that he doesn't consider the jailing of a black man for merely dating a white woman an injustice.

Johnson's sentencing is not the only injustice that occured at the time. The murder of more than twenty people over one of his victories is another.

In 1908 Johnson defeated Canadian Tommy Burns to become the first Black World Heavyweight boxing champion.

James Jeffries, at that time considered to be the greatest boxer of all time, immediately came out of retirement to fight Johnson. In his own words, "I am going into this fight for the sole purpose of proving that a white man is better than a negro." He was dubbed The Great White Hope who would once and for all prove the superiority of white over black.

The fight took place on 4 July 1910. Things didn't go quite as Jeffries imagined. Johnson toyed with him for much of the fight. Then in the penultimate round Jeffries was knocked down. He staggered up. He was immediately knocked out of the ring. A number of people rushed to push him back to his feet and into the ring as if to say, "get back in there and defend our race."

He was immediately knocked down a third time. Jeffries manager then jumped into the ring and stood between the boxers. As the fight was awarded to Johnson the commentator remarked that Jeffries was "the betrayer of his race."

Because of the manager's actions, Johnson's victory was classified a "technical knock out". The spin was that the white man was not actually knocked out by the black man. He had suffered a TKO because of the manager's actions. Please stop laughing.

While the fight was filmed footage was banned from being played on televisions for decades. A ban which seems to still be informally in place.

That night anti-black race riots erupted across much of America. According this article "No one knows how many died in the wake of Johnson-Jeffries fight, but records show between 11 and 26 were killed." To this date no one has been tried for those murders. Perhaps Trump might consider that an injustice. Maybe not.

The American establishment went into overdrive trying to explain away Jeffries loss and diminish Johnson victories. Jeffries was older, he had not been fighting for six years, he was out of shape were some of the justifications peddled at the time.

Mandiita Wepi

Isu tisu vomoti tiseve nemutuvi
Imi henyu muri vadyi vezangira

Isu tisu vomuita vanamukweva hundi
Imi muri vanamukuya zviyo

Hezvo nhasi moti tinanzve mambava
Imi muchisvisvina mwongo

Motiita vana mutanha nhundurwa
Imi muri vadyi vematufu

Mukati tiite vana mukuya tsine
Imi muri vatswi vomupunga

Raramo yedu yoita shambanemisodzi
Imi muri vana mukaka idziva, mutuvi ndewembwa

Isu motiita vana muumba hunza
Imi muri vana mupwanya dura

Isu vana muteya mbeva
Nzou moriga mega henyuzve

Totodanwa mazita ekuti vana Mukokotera
Imi muri vana Mugapura Hunwa

Vurombo hwayo shiri kutonhorwa nechando
Mambava akatorwa nevangwaru

Tokambaira mubani remachakwi
Motserendenda ngware dzerugare

Gogo Tsvangirai Was Perfectly Correct in Everything She Did

During the funeral of the late MDC leader, Morgan Tsvangirai, there were several occasions when the media alleged scandal when there was none. In my opinion the real scandal was the reporters flaunting their ignorance of the late leader's culture, ChiKaranga (Shona culture).

Many of the events that were alleged to be scandals were cultural perfect and sound. The real problem was reporters trying to interpret events in Western cultural context. Tsvangira's family conducted proceedings according to Shona culture as is normal in rural Zimbabwe.

Aspects of Western culture such as prayers and the presence of church ministers are accommodated, but the foundation of everything done is paChikaranga chedu (according to our Chikaranga).

Thus below I will explain how Gogo Tsvangirai's alleged ban of Elizabeth (Tsvangirai's third wife), her refusal to leave the hearse tosit at the 'high table' and Elizabeth's travelling by road, while Susan's family member rode on the helicopter provided, were not scandalous in any manner.

The only scandal was Chamisa trying to commandeer proceedings ahead of the family. I will not bother with the MDC trying to turn the Humanikwa village into a boxing stadium. That has got nothing to do with the funeral proceedings. Or them trying to make a pyre for Thokozani Khupe out of one of the huts at the Tsvangirai homestead. (How would Thoko of Arc sound in history books? Or should it be Thoko of Buhera?)

Introducing ChiKaranga in Five Minutes

ChiKaranga or Shona culture has some very strong procedural tenets at important functions such as funeral. There are prescriptions on who gets officially informed when, for what reason, and using what method. If one of those to be informed has got grievances they can hold up proceedings while their grievances are addressed.

I am going to do my best to summarise practises at a funeral. Practises may vary from clan to clan and region to region but the general outline is very similar.

I come from Chikomba district (Chivhu) next to Buhera district where Tsvangirai comes from. Chikomba is part of Uhera (Land of the Hera clan) from which the name Buhera is derived. I can therefore safely say cultural practises in my home area are very very close to those in Tsvangirai's home area if not exactly the same.

When a family man dies (saimba) his immediate family (present wife and children) are expected to inform their elders. The most senior member of the clan (may be the father, uncles, grand-uncles or an elder cousin) is then expected to guide proceedings.

No decision is made by an individual, so this person is primarily expected to call dare remusha (family council) which will guide proceedings. The most senior clan member presides over this council and if disputes arise that member is expected to have a final say.

However let me stress that decisions are expected to be by consensus not by decree. If the biological parents of the deceased are alive, the family council defers to them in case of disputes. The council act as advisers to the parents not as imposers of decisions.

Even local traditional leaders such as (in order of rank) Sabhuku, Ishe, Mambo or Changamire (roughly English equivalents are Headman, Chief, King, Emperor)) defer to the family council. They only offer advice especially on local taboos of the region. Normally the Headman is present at every funeral.

The family council are allowed, in fact expected, to do things according to their clan traditions. The clan is roughly defined by totem (mutupo) but in practise closest members of the extended family (brothers, sisters, cousins, uncles and aunts) make the final decisions. Ideally nothing is done without consulting the family council.

Once the family council has gathered (or those members able to be present) they are expected to do certain things in an officially manner.

They have to officially inform family in-laws, that is the clan where deceased's mother comes from, in this case Mbuya Tsvangirai's clan.

The deceased's own in-laws, that is ALL families he has ever paid roora (dowry) to, also have to be officially informed. In other words the families of his past and present wives.

These families are given equal status. However in most cases families whose daughters have born the deceased children are treated with extra care. Shona culture (ChiKaranga) worships Mwari. Ancestors are an important of the communication channels to Him.

Those families whose daughters have children with the deceased are expected to make sure their own ancestral rites are done properly so that children of the deceased do not face ngozi (vengeful spirits) from the mother's side in future. That does not mean those without children are discarded. They are also treated well less they become ngozi upon the entire clan.

By the way, Mwari has got absolutely nothing to do with Jehovah and the association comes from a disputed mistranslation of the bible by missionaries.

At the rural home the body lies in state for one night in the kitchen hut of the senior wife (vahosi) no matter this wife is dead or no longer living in the village.

Besides the in-laws local traditional leaders are also officially informed.

The practice of officially sending word to someone is called kutumira shoko. It may involve physically sending a family member to the person or family to be informed. Usually they take with them a small token. In modern times some people expect this token to be cash sufficient for bus-fare but that is not a traditional requirement.

In Tsvangirai's case official word would have been send to the Zvaipa family (his mother's clan), Mhundwa family (his first wife's clan), the Karimatsenga family (Locardia's family) and the Macheka family (his current wife's clan).

As we say in Shona, "Pafa munhu hapashaikwi marehwarehwa" (Where somebody has died you will always get talking and dramatics).

The other important thing is that once members of these in-law clans have arrived, they are expected to be officially given accommodation. That practice is called "kuratidza vanatezvara imba yavo" (showing the in-laws their accommodation).

Depending on the wealth and configuration of the deceased's home and village, this may be a room in a building, or a separate homestead such as a cousin's homestead nearby.

No distinction is made among in-laws present and they are expected to share the accommodation. If several rooms are available the bereaved clan does not dictate who goes in which room, rather the in-laws may allocate the available rooms among themselves, which is almost always done by gender.

During the funeral itself all the in-laws and traditional leaders are officially informed ahead of the general public by the family council before an important step is taken.

That usually involves sending a nephew (muzukuru) to the respective accommodations who presents the word in a proper ceremonial manner. That usually amounts to adopting appropriate physical posture (kneeling or squatting), clapping of the hands and addressing the intended recipients by their totems.

The messenger is expected to return with official word to the family council which is usually "tazvinzwa itai henyu" (we have heard you, go ahead) but might be a reminder of an important rite that has been skipped.

There are many and intricate rites involved in burying a person ranging from who decides where to dig the grave (kutema rukaha), how and by whom the body is washed, certain plants and herbs may be placed in the grave.

The people who handle the body are dictated by protocol. There are also strict protocols on who accompanies a body while it is being transported. There is even rules on who sits towards the head, who sits towards the legs who sits on the right and who sits on the left.

The MDC as a party and its leaders would have had no official role in terms of Shona culture. They would belong to a group termed madzisahwira (friends). They are always given respect, often signified by being supplied with their own pot (or pots) of beer (hari yemadzisahwira). However they are not expected to interfere with proceedings or give themselves precedence over clan members.

Often the friends are dealt with through a representative of which it appears to me that the Tsvangirai clan recognised Thokozani Khupe as the representative. In normal cases that would mean word would be exchanged with the MDC through her. If anything stopped that from happening it is the MDC's own infighting and the Tsvangirai family cannot be blamed for that.

You may have had family members trying to push agendas outside and without the authority of the family council (dare remusha) but that is part of the marehwarehwa (pointless talking) that I mentioned earlier. ChiKaranga simply brushes dramatics and noise aside. It would have been a crisis if burial had been delayed by a day or more over a dispute.

Otherwise judging by the timeline, despite the marehwarehwa zvinhu zvakafamba zvakanaka (things went well despite the talking and dramatics).

I have tried my best to summarise ChiKaranga with respect to funerals. Now let me try to explain specific events that have been reported as scandalous by the media but make perfect sense in terms of culture.

Mbuya Tsvangirai's 'Ban' of Elizabeth and Chamisa

The claim that Tsvangirai's mother wanted to hang herself is not scandalous at all in terms of Shona culture. The statement that gave rise to this frenzy began with the exact words "Udza vanasekuru vako kuti ..." (Go and tell your uncles that ....).

It is clear she was addressing a nephew of the Tsvangirai clan asking him to take her message to dare rekwaTsvangirai (Tsvangirai family council). The threat to hang herself, as well as banging her mudonzvo (walking stick) on the floor, would have been meant to convey the gravity of her grievance to the family council.

In terms of culture Mbuya Tsvangirai acted perfectly she sent an appropriate messenger to the appropriate forum. What would have been unseemly is if Ambuya herself had told Elizabeth to leave, or whacked her daughter-in-law with her stick or stood in the middle of the yard shouting, something called kumira pachivanze in Shona.

By requesting the family council to address her grievances she acted in a mature and expected manner.

In terms of protocol the family council would have investigated the matter and addressed it. I am convinced that was done. They could have asked Elizabeth to apologise, pay a small token fine, or simply given Mbuya Tsvangirai an explanation.

Mbuya's Refusal To Leave the Hearse

Let me point out that a sidetrack that is ignored by media but is very much present in everyday life is witchcraft.

We all know people are murdered for body parts with albinos being specifically targeted in East Central Africa. People also do steal parts from bodies of people who die naturally. There have been several cases of mortuary workers caught selling body parts in several countries in Africa.

The body parts stolen for witchcraft purposes are not always gory and bloody items, but sometimes seemingly benign items like a little bit of hair, or nail clippings. In some cases people may simply wipe fluids from the body with cloth.

Therefore some protocols are maintained to prevent the body from being desecrated by people who want to steal its parts. When the mother accompanies the body during transportation, she would also be watching closely that nobody steals even a hair lock or a fingernail from the body.

Remember in rural areas deceased people are often transported in scotch-carts and some families cannot even afford proper coffins. So watching the body practically means not straying far from the means of transport even for a moment.

Tsvangirai's mother acted very wisely in not allowing herself to be distracted by being made to sit at a high-table leaving her son's body unattended. It would have been extremely scandalous, in Shona culture, for a mother to leave her child's body unattended to go and enjoy some good food and public limelight.

How would she explain to her own clan and the Tsvangirai clan if were to be later found that a little bit of hair had been shaved off the deceased during transportation. She would be the laughing stock of the village for years.

Elizabeth Travelling By Road

As mentioned earlier a man's in-laws are all the families he has ever paid roora to. In addition ChiKaranga stresses the welfare of children. Therefore when a person dies a sarapavana (the one who looks after the children) is always nominated. Such a person would have been appointed when Tsvangirai's first wife, Susan died.

That person is expected to fill in the role that Susan would have played during ceremonies and rites. Lest some misunderstand me that person is not an inherited wife.

In an interview with the Herald Tsvangirai's brother explained that members of the Mhundwa family (Susan's family) demanded that one of them accompany the body to his rural home. That person would have been this fill-in mother for the late wife's children or someone the family nominated for the day.

The demand would have been presented to the Tsvangirai family council who would have sought a way to accommodate it without causing a scene. According to his brother, they asked Elizabeth that since she had accompanied the body from Johannesburg to Harare, she could let the Mhundwa family's nominee accompany the body to Buhera.

Again this is a culturally very sound and diplomatic way of dealing with the situation. That is give the contenting families turns in filling a cultural role.

Keep in mind that a member of the Mhundwa family would be expected to open the late Susan's kitchen hut for the body to lie in state when it got to Buhera. The fact is she was Morgan's senior wife, vahosi. The Tsvangirai family would have considered that when dealing with the matter of who accompanies the body to Buhera.

Dai vakasiya vekwaMhundwa vainovhurirwa nani imba. If they left behind Susan's family members who was going to open her kitchen for the body to lie in state.

The Herald also reported that Elizabeth's family had been "given a room". Thus the Macheka clan where given accommodation (vakaratidzwa imba) by the Tsvangirai clan as per custom.

That means the Tsvangirai clan fully recognise the Machekas as their in-laws. Therefore paChiKaranga (in terms of Shona culture) there was no affront to Elizabeth from the Tsvangirai clan. What the media focused upon was just marehwarehwa.

The Chamisa Hearse Hijack

One last controversy that happened was when Nelson Chamisa, in his claimed capacity as MDC president, apparently commanded that the hearse carrying Tsvangirai's body be driven to a school ground where party supporters were gathered.

According to news reports he spend thirty minutes arguing one of Tsvangirai's brothers, who explained that the family where not done with their rites and needed to properly in form their in-laws.

As I explained above in-laws (vana tezvara) are very highly respected and are officially informed of every step taken by the deceased's family. What this means is that the Tsvangirai family council meets and sends an official messenger to the accommodation they would have provided for the in-laws. Carrying the body from the room where it is housed, to the body is one such important step.

This is normally the kitchen hut that belongs to the first wife, no matter she is dead. Therefore it is critical to inform her family. However all in-laws, the families of Tsvangirai's wives and that of his mother, are officially informed.

The council would wait for the messenger to come back from all families with a reply before proceeding. It is considered an insult to proceed without informing the in-laws. Worse than throwing a shoe in Iraq.

Chamisa's placing himself ahead of the family council is considered highly scandalous in culturally conservative rural Zimbabwe. So much that some Zanu-PF supporters gloated that they no longer needed to campaign in Buhera as Chamisa had done the job for them.

Madzisahwira (friends) are expected to never try and and dictate to the family at a cultural function like a funeral. Worse still madzisahwira are not expected to torch huts especially that of the deceased's mother.

That is tantamount to witchcraft. Kuroya chaiko. I am sure by now there is quite a number of unsavoury speculative theories about what Chamisa wanted to do with the body doing the rounds in rural Zimbabwe.

Mbuya Manyonda is Tsvangirai's Mother. Fulstop nga.

What insult! What afront! Maiwe!

Do the  people who are busy making the argument that Mbuya Manyonda, is not Tsvangirai's real mother have something in the containers on their shoulders or are they carrying empty calabashes? I ask this question especially of those who were brought up in the ChiKaranga culture. Or to put it in colonially doctored context, Shona culture.

It is as if my mother's niece or sister is at my funeral and then someone says, "Havasi mai vacho chaivo chaivo." You will be inviting me to jump out of the coffin and give you a mighty clap. Mbama!

Speaking as someone who is absolutely proud of my culture, I want to make it very clear that Mbuya Manyonda is perfectly within her rights to say what she wants at the funeral of HER SON. Mwana wavo. Even her nieces have the right to speak in the role of Tsvangirai's mother, no questions asked.

Those who want to adopt English culture and hold it with a long handle like a torn basket, are just exhibiting the extend of their colonial brainwashing.

Please note, I have not said anything regarding the reasons why she said what she said. I do not care about them and I do not want to know about them. They are irrelevant to the fact that Mbuya Manyonda ndimai va Morgan CHAIVO CHAIVO!

Let me say in terms of MY CULTURE which I believe is also Mbuya Manyonda's culture, there are certain roles that relatives such as vakuwasha, vana and varoora (sons-in-law, children and daughters-in-law) are expected to fulfill. Elders are perfectly within their rights to declare those who fail to fulfil those roles persona non grata. Let me add I do not know the reasons for Mai vaTsvangirai's sentiments therefore I am not going to go deeper into the topic.

Up to now I have not mentioned the MDC. Neither did Mbuya Manyonda mention the party. She mentioned her daughter-in-law (muroora wavo) and Chamisa. As to why Chamisa is being mentioned in the affairs of the Tsvangirai family, I do not know and I do not want to speculate.

I will also not presume it could only be to do with the MDC and its succession circus. It could be for other reasons as well. There is no cultural reason why Tsvangirai mother (Mai vake chaivo chaivo paChikaranga chedu) would involve herself in the party's affairs. Therefore it is very unlikely that her mention of Chamisa has something to do with his rather acrobatic leap for power.

The MDC should stop trying to impose itself on the affairs of the Tsvangirai family because of its dismal failure to manage its succession matters. They should go back to their membership for them to democratically elect their leadership and not expect the late leader's family to ordain a successor for them. Their antics so far suggest that almost their entire leadership have no clue what democracy is.

Let me take off my cultural hat and put on my hat as a liberal democrat. It no point in democracy, whether representative or direct democracy, is a person chosen for whatever role on the basis of perception or selection by an outgoing leader. I person is chosen through a fair and equitable process in which all the constituents are given an opportunity to be represented.

The constituents of a party are the membership and in terms of the MDC constitution the representative body is congress not the Tsvangirai family or social media commentators like me.

Dear African Leaders: Do Not Let Our Money Make America Great For Trump

Dear African Leaders

Recently the President of the United States of America went on record to describe our countries as shithole countries.

It is a free world. He is entitled to his opinion.

But we are entitled to our dignity, and your our leaders are the first line of defence for that.

American corporations are making billions from Africa. Oil companies are getting rich extracting oil from Nigeria, Angola, Libya among the many countries. Some of the richest companies in the world Microsft, Apple make billions from us and take the money to help make Trump what he is.

Next time you buy an iPhone or an iPad just remember that you are contributing to the salary of someone who calls you a shithole citizen.

When you click on your Windows desktop, just repeat the words, "I am a shithole, I am a shithole". Because for every Windows copy that you have bought remember you have contributed to the money that makes Donald Trump what he is.

When ever you hop into your Jeep Cherokee, Dodge or Chrysler imagine how much your have contributed to Trumps petulant ego.

It is therefore with your dignity and the dignity of the entire African people in mind, that I call upon you to think twice when you buy or use American products.

I have got no grudge against American people. Many of them are unfortunate and quite angry to find themselves under the leadership of someone who behaves as if his head is full of excreta from a goat with diarrhea. They make great friends to many of us.

But we need to make it clear that we are not happy with the insults Trump is directing our way.

Our plight is not just of our own making. Need I remind you of the colonial and slave owning activities of Trump's forefathers. Those activities made our continent a shithole, from which we are still trying to dig our way out.

We should not do so under a barrage of insults. We should not smile and chuckle when the racist mentality that led to slavery and colonialism is displayed with such unashamed abandon.

Therefore until Trump unreservedly apologizes or is out of office, let us make an effort to keep
money from shithole places from contributing to his power.

We need to show Mr Trump that we are not happy with his insults. We need to make it clear to him that African dignity matters.

Mnangagwa on the Economy: Signs not good.

I have been waiting eagerly to hear Mnangagwa's ideas on the economy.

I was a bit crest-fallen when I heard him repeats the words jobs, jobs, jobs. Yes jobs are need but job creation as a policy has no chance of working in Zimbabwe.

Zimbabwe has only 32% urban population as of 2016 data. That means 68% of Zimbabwe's population are rural and mostly not even looking for jobs.

Zimbabwe's rural people subsist on their own land meaning their entire labour-time is occupied in their own economic endeavours, not on those of employers. Therefore job creation as a core policy is likely to leave the large rural section of the population in poverty.

The number one economic enhancement policy for me is rural infrastructure improvement particularly roads. Number two is a free agricultural market accompanied by prompt payment for agricultural produce by government bodies. Number three is protection of rural farmers from exploitative middlemen.

What the rural population need is sound agricultural policies and access to an unfettered free market, a market free from excessive government interference and protected from corrupt middlemen.

Zimbabwe's Demographic is Mainly Rural So Jobs Alone not enough

Number four is seeking markets. Highly urbanised countries need their people to be fed. Some countries here in Africa are importing food from as far afield as Brazil and the USA. Zimbabwe needs to focus on raising the quality of agricultural produce as well relaxing its own export regulations and working to lower tariff and regulatory barriers to such markets.

Jobs are important to only 32% of Zimbabwe's population. Mnangagwa should not fall into the trap of thumb-sucking policies that work in Western economies and hoping they will work in a largely rural economy. The demographics are simply too different. The West have much higher urbanisation rates as well as bigger populations.

State Expenditure Must Come Down To Be in Line with Revenue

For example the USA is 81% urbanised with a population of more than 300 million. There is a huge market for factories to supply. Therefore there is a huge demand for jobs to man those factories. The United Kingdom is 83% urbanised. Urbanisation in the rest of Europe also hovers above 80%.

Urban people largely do not have access to land thus do not have other means of sustenance except being employed. For rural people employment is a secondary option. In short for 68% of Zimbabwe's population, employment is not a primary economic activity.

The other big problem is government expenditure, especially the propensity for unbudgeted for expenditure. For a long time I have argued that Zimbabwe's economy cannot recover because of an oversized executive. That means there is no room for patronage.

Political Hands Should be Kept Out of State Coffers

Overally what is important for Zimbabwe's economy is sound free market policies and responsible governance. Politicians should never ever be allowed to treat state funds as their petty cash kitty.

When the so called not-a-coup Operation Restore Legacy was launched it turned out that a substantial number of ministers and the remaining vice-president were outside the country. The primary purpose of such foreign trips is to milk state coffers of per diem allowances. Such practices need to end.

Perhaps the biggest draw down of Zimbabwe's economy is the culture of entitlement that pervades Zimbabwean political and management class. People no longer treat management roles as ensuring sustainable management of enterprises. Rather they treat management roles and an entitlement vehicle that gives them access to all kinds of perks and allowances, even if it means running the organisation into the ground.

A number of state enterprises and some private companies have been paying management amounts that are more than their turnover.

Culture of Entitlement Must End

Then there is the practice evading tax and other payments that is quite common in the higher classes. Senior politicians run "businesses" that get by essentially by not paying taxes. Most of these so called businesses are nothing but operations to launder money obtained from the state by hook and by crook.

It does not help that a very strong stench of rumours involving corruption and appropriation of state resources emanates from Mnangagwa's own political past.

I have serious doubts that ED will take serious and meaningful action against corruption. Indeed over the past few weeks people targeted for 'investigation' and arrest have largely been members of the vanquished faction of Zanu-PF. In my books factional victimisation of a few individuals does not amount to a serious fight against corruption.

Lastly the Zimbabwe state needs to make a conscious effort to support local economic activities. Instead of importing finished products the government should be trying to support products with as much local content as possible.

The Elite Must Buy Made in Zimbabwe

Generally there is a mentality among the elite that it is prestigious to import things. That mentality is one of the biggest reasons why there is perpetual cash shortage in Zimbabwe. The moment money gets into the hands of the elite it is exported and they buy trinkets, go on expensive sojourns and holidays not to mention wasteful parties.

My favourite example is motor vehicles. Of late the government has virtually stopped purchasing from local assemblers like Willowvale Motor Industries, Quest Motors, Deven and Dahmer.

I wonder exactly how the government hopes to create jobs when they don't mostly buy products made by local labour. If I had my way cabinet ministers should be wearing clothing made by local tailors. If there are issues with quality point them out to the manufacturers. That is the only way yo can give them a chance to improve and catch up with the rest of the world.

In short, the jury is still out on whether Mnangagwa has got what it takes to turn around the economy. It takes impeccable personal integrity, honesty, firm but very fair application of the law to tackle the concrete blocks weighing down Zimbabwe's economy as it tries to swim in a crocodile infested river. Excuse the unintended pun.

Open Letter to General Chiwenga

Open Letter to General Chiwenga

Sinyoro. Vazungu vakabva Gouveia nengarava. Vanopira midzimu nemvura. My apologies if I got your totem wrong.

I am addressing this to you because I believe you are the man with the power to determine the direction Zimbabwe takes right now. Though it is not official, you are the man in charge.

Firstly I would like to remind you of one slogan that you used to say in those difficult days at pungwes and other dangerous situations as you put your life on the line for Zimbabwe's freedom. The days of the liberation struggle.

One man one vote.

That slogan epitomizes what you fought for. Self determination by the Zimbabwean people. The right of the Zimbabwean people to choose their leaders.

I believe your current actions are correct. Yes the people of Zimbabwe voted for Robert Mugabe, but it is clear he is increasingly incapacitated by old age. Such that his powers were being manipulated by his young wife and other usurping court jesters close to her. I agree with you. Those antics were destabilizing Zimbabwe.

Thanks to your professionalism, vigilance and able leadership of the defence forces, Zimbabwe is not in an unstable state.

As such I do not believe an interim period of stabilization is needed. We can go to elections in 90 days as stipulated by the constitution that you showed us when you announced your intention to stabilize Zimbabwe's politics.

Having a lengthy interim period can only serve patronage purposes. That is to allow some people to enjoy the benefits of power, without facing the generality of Zimbabwe's population. Nobody deserves that because they have not been voted for by the people of Zimbabwe. Only Robert Mugabe won a presidential election. Others need to win their own mandates.

However, the speaker of parliament Jacob Mudenda can be acting president for 90 days. He is a neutral person in terms of those who have expressed interest in power. I have got absolute confidence in you and your ability to maintain Zimbabwe's stability under that arrangement.

Those who have expressed interest in power, vana ED, vana Joice, vana Morgiza, vana Nkosana Moyo and others, can hit the campaign trail. They need to convince us, the people of Zimbabwe, that they deserve our votes.

Aka kamukadzi aka, if she wants she can campaign too. But hehehe. Regai ndinyarare.

In terms of the Zanu-PF factional fight, give everyone a fair chance. Imposing a specific person on Zanu-PF is no different from Mugabe imposing Grace. Let Zanu-PF go to congress. Adyiwa adyiwa. The winner contests national elections and becomes president.

I recommend the above course of action to you, because it maintains the primacy of the constitution. It is also the one least likely to bring you into conflict with SADC and the African Union. With the likelihood of external intervention attempts, such a conflict will mean much worse instability for Zimbabwe than that which you prevented.

Sinyoro.
Guvheya.
Vazungu.
Vemachira machena.
Vakauya nengarava.
Vene vemagidi.

Ndateterera. Ndinzweiwo mwana wenyu.

So what does the political future hold for Zimbabwe?

So what does the political future hold for Zimbabwe?

My gut feeling is that political parties without liberation credentials, that is the MDC and its various mutations, are the biggest political losers in current developments. Their campaign platform has been little apart from Mugabe must go.

Now he is going and they are not even part of making him go. If I may ask what is their relevance now?

In fact, they spend much of their political lives insulting and denigrating the military who are bringing the change they failed to.

Zimbabweans, especially the rural population, do have an affinity to politicians with liberation credentials.

I am willing to bet all my cows that we have not seen the last of general Chiwenga on the political scene. There will be a lot of relief and gratitude among Zimbabweans that he managed a very, very difficult situation without bloodshed. That is a significant political investment in his benefit.

Is Emmerson Mnangagwa the next main man? It is clear he imagines himself to be but I doubt. Many Zimbabweans are not comfortable with his history as an enforcer for Mugabe. The nickname Ngwena stems from that people for a long time have said he has the cruelty of a crocodile.

I am personally not comfortable with his regionalistic rhetoric. My home district was part of the Midlands and fits into the circle of what he defines as 'his' people but for me that is a myopic view for a national politician to ever espouse.

His definition of Karanga ethnicity is anyway plain wrong. It based on  British drawn provincial boundaries that did not even take into account ethnicity. It has nothing to do with ethnic identity as defined by Shona culture.

I also do not think General Chiwenga would take power and hand it over to someone else. He would probably be keenly aware of what happened in the history of ZANLA. Rex Nhongo supressed a rebellion and handed power to Mugabe. We all know Rex Nhongo's (aka Solomon Mujuru) ending was not good.

What about Joice Mujuru. She has some political capital and if she were to face Mnangagwa in an election I think she would win. However with Chiwenga in the picture the script changes considerably.

Jonathan Moyo is living evidence that intellectualism does not amount to political skill. When you are a good intellectual others can use you but sometimes you cannot use yourself.

My gut feeling is that at some point in the near future we are likely to have a President Chiwenga.

Grace Mugabe has very badly exposed her husband

The man needs Zanu-PF stalwarts

Which ever way I look at what is happening in Zimbabwe, I see Robert Mugabe having moved out of his safe zone. Splintering Zanu-PF is like two brothers starting a fight with huge antagonistic bouncers cracking their knuckles in the wings itching to get their hands on one of them.

Whichever side Mugabe IS NOT on, is likely to receive influential, if not material, help from the powerful and rich West. Those guys' hands are itching to get hold of Mugabe over what he did to their interests, not only through land reform, but through other spiteful policies that resulted in closure of mostly Western owned industries in Zimbabwe.

An example is the Look East policy enacted after Mugabe was banned from travelling to the West. It was spiteful and caused significant damage to Western owned Zimbabwe industries and the country's economy.

Those who blinkeredly created disunity in Zanu-PF have left Mugabe very, very badly exposed. When Zanu-PF splinters the side that gets assistance from outside is likely to come out on top. They will get valuable intelligence to outmanoeuvre the other.

Why is that important? A country like Zimbabwe simply does not have the wherewithal to counter say the CIA's technological sophistry and reach. They can listen phone conversations, track people and vehicles almost at will. Not to mention that buildings are probably crawling with listening devices.

Whatever is discussed it is very very likely the Americans will know much of it and feed intelligence to the side side they prefer.

Neighbouring countries, especially South Africa, facing problems because of the influx of Zimbabwean economic refugees not likely to mount a defence of Mugabe like Thabo Mbeki did.

I haven't made up my mind yet, but the fact that Chiwenga was on a visit to China just before he made his threat to 'step in' means that the G40 faction cannot hope for much support from that quarter.

Even inside the country it is entirely delusional to think that Grace carries the electoral clout to win an election. It is also completely misreading history and the country to think that plain thuggery can keep her in power. Plain thuggery failed to keep Ian Smith in power.

Robert Mugabe was genuinely popular especially in the early days of independence. He was even loved by the West. That support has waned, but he has been lucky to have no meaningful challengers. By people meaningful I mean challengers with a clear people-centric message.

Whoever is on Mugabe's side will be fools if they do not realize they are the ones whose fortunes are very very thinly stretched. Whatever advantage they have inside Zanu-PF, in the long run, will be cancelled out by the very powerful interests likely to support the other side.

So far noone split from Zanu-PF has made significant effort to get outside help. But the temperature of the factionalism now is such that they have no choice.

The people who are being shed now have liberation credentials which means they are far much more likely to get a more sympathetic ear from fellow liberation movements like ANC, FRELIMO, MPLA, SWAPO, etc than the MDC would get.

For the factionalists in Zanu-PF their best hope is to keep everyone on board. Keep Zanu-PF united.

Ngavarege kudziirwa vachikanganwa kunge mbeva dziri mubani risina mwena. They should not gallivant around like mice in a plain without boltholes. When the cat comes there will be nowhere to run.

Nyamhere River: How did Zanu-PF get into Grace's Hands?

Zanu-PF stalwarts have allowed themselves to be found frolicking naked in the pool

As you walk out of the small ravine, up the well beaten scotch-cart track you see the tree. Branches clawing scraggly at the sky, the mutamba (wild locquat) tree stands forlornly and is if in lonely perpetual prayer. It stands in Sekuru Matambo's field, scattered with dry maize stalks from last year's crop.

Your tired feet scuff the earth, battling step by step eating away the the distance, perambulating you past the tree towards the Muketa homestead. Further down is Mudhara Hahuhunanzvi's homestead. His name means "you will not lick the beer" and I am not offering any prizes for guessing his favourite passtime.

You lurch past the Muketa homnestead towards the headman's homestead. Nobody has ever seen him behind the wheel of a motor vehicle but he is popularly known as Driver. He is a wizzened wise old man, Mudhara Hahuhunanzvi's older brother. Driver is Chararamiro village's very own Google search engine for wisdom.

You saunter past the headman's home, past of that of his younger brother popularly known as Ngundu, also another eternal fountain of wisdom. As you stroll out of the village, you stumble into the thicket of mutondo shrubs. In the distance you see the snaking dark vegetation marking its course.

You are coming to Nyamhere River.

Its flow is seasonal, but there are a few deep pools that do not go dry throughout the year. One of them is Chembiti. Its banks are lined by evergreen grass, a couple of rocks jutting into the pool like a jetty.

Chembiti was our favourite spot for swimming and bathing. We would discard our clothes, draping them over the mutondo and acacia shrubs lining the river bank and spend most of the day splashing about in the pool.

It is a pity we knew nothing about the Olympics. There were a couple of swimmers like Fortunate Maputi and my best friend Stanford Chiraramiro who would have made the cut in any Olympic team.

Now let us the depart the realm of fact and delve into imagination. Suppose a madman, happened upon us as we splashed naked in Chembiti pool on Nyamhere river. Unseen by us, he tip-toes among the shrubs collecting our clothes, stuffing them in his dirty bag.

Suddenly we see him!

"Hey!" goes out the collective shout. "What are you doing? Leave our clothes!"

Instead of heeding our calls the madman heads off across the short grass of Muchovhu plain. His legs windmilling faster than an aeroplane propeller, he runs fast away from us. We all take off after him trying to get back our clothes.

Suppose a stranger spies this scene, a bunch of naked people running after a fully clothed man, what is their conclusion likely to be? Who are they going to call mad? Mapenzi ndeapi?

Now imagine a bunch of Zanu-PF stalwarts running after Grace Mugabe for power. Mapenzi ndeapi? Who are the mad people here?

I have a question for the stalwarts. Where were you and what were you doing while your legacy was being taken from you?

Why was Zanu-PF formed? Was the party not formed to serve the interests of the people? How could you allow the party to be personalized in front of your eyes.

The stalwarts have been found naked because their political lives are no longer clothed with the people's interests. All they ever talk about is themselves getting into power. "When I rule. When I rule." that is all we hear from them.

The stalwarts have been frolicking naked in pools of luxury while the people suffer in the wilderness of an economic meltdown.

If you are not clothed with the people's interests you will never walk the road to power the same way I can always walk the road to Chembiti.

These stalwarts are mapenzi evanhu. Hamuna kushonga zvido zvevanhu saka muchitorerwa masimba.

Pamberi nevanhu veZimbabwe yese!!!

Boris Johnson's Blatant Neo-Colonialism and Neo-Imperialism

Recently British foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, joked that British businessmen, not Libyans, would build cities to rival Dubai were it not for dead bodies littering Libyan streets.

The joke was in very bad taste. Let us not forget the leading role the British played in putting Libya in the problems it faces today..

On 19 March 2011 the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution authorizing a no fly-zone over Libya. Ostensibly as part of that enforcement British forces, with participation of their American counterparts, fired one hundred and ten Tomahawk missiles at Libya.

I am not a military expert but I have never understood Tomahawks to be capable of attacking airborne targets.

I will leave it to the experts to explain what ground attack weapons have got to do with enforcing a no-fly zone. At no point had Libya ignored the no-fly zone or fired at coalition aircraft at the time the ground attack began?

What I want to make very clear is that it was British who began the process that ultimately left Libya without effective government, leading to streets littered with dead bodies that Boris is joking about today..

Please, understand that pointing out the above is not in any way amount to praising Gadhafi.

The African Union had made proposals for a negotiated transition which would have prevented the collapse of Libya. The President of South Africa, Jacob Zuma, literally had to beg the powerful Western forces to take those proposals to Gadhafi which, according to him, the later accepted.

The proposals included a ceasefire which would have saved lives and prevented bodies littering streets.

After his demise, Gadhafi's body was carted into the desert where not even one member of his family could let a tear drop on his grave let alone lay a flower. I do not know if those who did it are superstitious. If they are, I am sure they performed rituals to make sure that even his ghost could not find its way home.

Gadhafi's influence in Libya ended with his death. Most of the fighting that littered streets with bodies, took place afterwards is among the militias that were armed and sponsored by Western countries. This means that even Gadhafi's ghost cannot be blamed for the bodies that Boris is joking about.

Now that we understand the role Britain played in putting Libya in the chaotic predicament it faces today, I can not imagine anything more callous than the British foreign secretary bandying about jokes about dead Libyans.

No matter what our leadership situation in the developing world, imagined or real, we do not want it to be compounded by callous and heartless rich people who have nothing better to do with their money and weapons other than make us suffer so that they can find subjects to joke about.

Clearly Boris sees countries whose people do not prioritize making weapons as nothing more than a playgrounds of death. His joke is an exemplification of the racist indifference that his  kind regard us with. A subconscious racism that attaches little value, if any, to human beings who live in poor parts of the world.

His kind probably feel more pity for a dog that gets run over in the street, than for the Yemeni children decapitated, blinded, disfigured and maimed by the weapons his country makes and profits from. He personally takes part in the decision making that sees weapons sold and used in places like Yemen and Libya where they result in the body-littered streets that he now jokes about. It is sad, but the truth.

The toady man’s joke suggests he is more than tone-deaf, maybe brain-deaf. I must say I am strongly tempted to replace the F in deaf with a D.

The dismissive way in which Theresa May finger-waves away the episode as just a minor bad choice of words, shows that she either does not have a clue or does not care. The prime minister of Britain does not think jokes about people dying in a chaotic mess her country helped create are worth her serious attention.

To twist the knife in Libya’s back, Borizozo claims his critics have "no knowledge or understanding of Libya". I wonder whether he has more knowledge than the Libyans, from both sides of the current divide, who also complained? How could he say Libyans have no knowledge or understanding of their own country and its suffering?

My personal judgment is that it is him who has no knowledge or understanding, not just of Libya, but of the disastrous role his country played in putting Libya where it is today.

Maybe Boris should borrow a page from Barack Obama's book.  The later at least had the decency to admit that his handling of Libya was the worst mistake of his presidency.

It is unfortunate, but the fault of Boris, that I now have to juxtapose that with the indecency of him joking about Libyan streets being littered with dead bodies.

By they way if you think the rest of his speech was sensible let think of its colonialist connotations. He talked about British business people building and, by my understanding, owning prime real estate on the Libyan coast.

Can Libyan people not build and own those hotels themselves? After all they have money from their own oil. It seems in Boris’ mind only the British can own and develop that land properly in Libya.

We have to wonder, did Britain lead the way in attacking Libya so that British business people could end up owning prime properties on the Libyan?

Donald Trump is Out of His Depth

History is full of some ridiculous moments that are not crowed about today because in hindsight they look, and in fact are, so stupid.

One such moment is the events surrounding the Galveston Giant, John 'Jack' Johnson becoming the first African world heavyweight boxing champion a day after Christmas in 1908.

At the turn of the century boxing like many other sports was segregated and the world heavy weight championship was de facto reserved for white boxers. When a good black boxer Jack Johnson came onto the scene the then world heavyweight champion James Jeffries refused to fight him. Jeffries retired without fighting Johnson.

Eventually a Canadian, Tommy Burns, became world heavyweight champion and agreed to fight Johnson, for a healthy purse of course. Johnson defeated Burns and became the first black world heavyweight boxing Champion.

This triggered resentment and animosity among whites and it was called for James Jeffries, then regarded the best boxer of all time, to come out of retirement and defeat Johnson. He was dubbed "The Great White Hope".

Jeffries agreed to the fight and in his own words, "I am going into this fight for the sole purpose of proving that a white man is better than a negro."

Thus on July 4, 1910, James Jeffries faced Jack Johnson "for the sole purpose of proving that a white man is better than a negro." By the 4th round it was clear Jeffries was not going to win. He spend much of the rest of the fight running and ducking away from Johnson.

By the 13th round it was clear Jeffries wouldn't last the distance. In the fifteenth round Jeffries was knocked down, he got up he and was immediately knocked OUT OF the ring. Punch drunk, he clawed and staggered his way back  into the ring and was immediately knocked down for the third time.

The referee was not stopping the fight so James Jeffries' manager rushed into the ring and got between the two boxers. He was not gonna let his man die trying to prove that "a white man is better than a negro".

That was in boxing over a century ago. Long before the time of Muhammad Ali, Sugar Ray Leonard, Mike Tyson and the Klitschko demolition pair.

The same ridiculous scene seems to be playing itself out, this time in American politics. Whenever Donald Trump is faced with tough questions he brings up Obama's presidency in negative light. When quizzed by a reporter over recent deaths of American soldiers in Niger, without being prompted Trump started casting himself in better light than Obama.

Despite the media reacting in a way that made it clear they were not buying that line of defence, a day later Trump brought up Obama in negative light again. Again the reporter had not asked about Obama.

One does not need to be a rocket scientist to figure out that Trump probably imagines himself the Great White Hope of politics. A man on a mission to prove that a white male president is better than a black president.

His obsession with Obamacare, his tinkering with the Iran deal against the advise of all America's allies except Israel, suggest that he is on a mission to prove that whatever Obama did, it was wrong. Donald Trump, a white man, can do better no matter what the circumstances.

On the contrary, I think he has spectacularly managed to prove that the man called Donald Trump is small minded. I think he is definitely unfit to be president of any country not just America. Not only is he unfit but he is dangerously irrational.

I do not consider Obama to be the best American president ever, but he is way way better than Donald Trump. American congress has to step into the ring and stop Trump from dying trying to prove he is better than Obama,

The Blame Mandela Game: Honest Truth

Recently President Robert Mugabe blamed Mandela for "leaving whites with too much power" in South Africa. He is not the first to sing that refrain. Few may understand his thinking, but an important clue is that his criticism started during the course of the incident involving his wife bashing a young South African lady.

I will explain that later but first let me make it clear that Mandela is not to blame for South Africa's current situation.

If a man leads you across a difficult desert up to the edge of a sea, you should praise him for navigating the desert and not blame him for leaving you without boats.

Those who want total economic emancipation should not blame Mandela for bringing an end to statutory apartheid but not leaving the boats to cross the sea of total economic emancipation. Blaming him for that is like blaming your father-in-law for not delivering your wife already pregnant. He has done his bringing her up. What job do you expect of yourself if you want her already pregnant?

An end to the idiotic but nonetheless statutory apartheid was a necessary first step. That crossing of that desert may not have been sufficient to complete the journey, but it is up to the current leadership to build the boats to go the rest of the way.

Some like in my country Zimbabwe have even set off back in the direction of the desert. Despite all the bravado about liberation, the truth is that the moment you dis-empower your people economically you leave them vulnerable to recolonization. Like a fish to bait, a hungry man will swallow anything that looks like food.

People should also remember that CODESA was not a one man show. Mandela was not sitting alone in front of a platoon of Afrikaners nodding like a jumping jack saying "Yes Baas! Yes Baas!" to everything they said..

A comprehensive delegation on the ANC side attended the negotiations and they consulted, and were closely advised, by the Frontline States. So any Frontline State leader who says Mandela made the wrong concessions should bear in mind that it was probably because they gave him the wrong advice.

The liberation of South Africa was a collective effort by the region and Africa. Therefore it is wrong to blame one man for what is not perfect while wanting to take credit for what is right. The success was collective and any shortcomings are also collective, not just on the South African people but on the Frontline States leaders who made their input as well.

Many of them wanted the wars and destabilization efforts sponsored by the apartheid idiots in their countries to end. The ANC as a collective, who had been hosted by various Frontline states, would have understood the difficulties in the states hosting them particularly Angola and Mozambique and would not have wanted to prolong those situations.

As for President Mugabe, his irritation with "too much white power" probably stemmed from Afriforum's involvement in his wife's saga. In Zimbabwe hordes of supposed veterans from the liberation war would have invaded the farms Afriforum members in retaliation.

He probably perceives it a weakness of the ANC's position, not a strength of South African law, that the same cannot happen in South Africa.

Kenya Supreme Court Made a Wrong Call

I have been following the Kenya elections saga, particularly after the elections were nullified by the Kenyan Supreme Court.

While everyone has been going hoarse singing praises to the court I beg to strongly differ.

From the look of it the court nullified the elections for no reason other than that the opposition was not happy.

The court found that the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission had “committed irregularities and illegalities in the transmission of results” and "other issues" which it did not bother to specify.

It looks like no one including the opposition has any idea what these illegalities, irregularities and other issues were. In other words there are no solid facts behind the judgement.

If the same standard were to be applied to the chad debacle in the United States election where George 'Dubya' Bush faced off with Al Gore in 2000, that election would have been rerun umpteen times.

In that election there were clearly identified issues with voting machines which made chads instead of punching holes in the voting paper. Automatic counting machines then discarded these votes is spoilt ballots.

After the technical problem had been clearly identified, the US authorities fell back to manually counting the votes. Even then there were issue as some of the impressions and chads made by the voting machines left the voter's intentions debatable. Still that did not nullify the election.

No such clearly defined problem with the voting process has been identified in the Kenyan election. Instead it seems the issue has been with the transmission of results.

Mwari wangu why not just order a simple recount! Or simply ask voting stations to phone in their results.

Why put the country through the risk of violence, not to mention wasting billions? After all independent international and local observers found no problem with the integrity of the election. Their independent tallies largely matched the official result.

What is it the Kenyan Supreme Court saw that hundreds of observers did not see?

The answer is probably nothing apart from the judge's political leanings. Being African I know how these things work in Africa. I need a little bit more information before I pass a final judgement, excuse the pun. I want to know the judge's village of origin and how far it is from Odinga's.

Secondly the margin of Uhuru's victory was not by any means a close call. There is a clear nine percent gap between him and the unhappy candidate. Is there any likelihood that those irregularities and illegalities, that the judge did not bother to specify, could have wiped out that margin? I don't think there is such a likelihood.

To those who are busy singing praises, I would like to say a political judgement is bad no matter who it goes for. If you put the contents of a Kibera latrine a bottle labelled 'Honey' it does not turn them into honey.

The fact that this judgement went for the opposition does not change that there is no solid legal facts to nullify the election. There is no proof of the actual voting process being significantly compromised. Nobody has given details of exactly what was done wrong. Therefore it is a bad judgement irrespective of who it went for.

If we are to nullify the elections on the basis of "transmission" that means all elections before the advent of computers and telecommunications were invalid.

My personal opinion is that the Kenyan supreme court made a terribly wrong call. We can go about nullifying elections simply because someone is not happy they have been defeated.

In any election there is always someone who is not happy with the result. Hillary Clinton is still grumbling about the US election of last year as we speak.

The Empress Is Naked

Grace Mugabe had got used to tossing around Zimbabwe government officials despite her not being part of government. A recent example example is when she picked on the permanent secretary for the ministry of information at a rally.

"Iwe George simuka!" (Wena George yima! Hey George stand up!). She then gave him a gale force verbal dry cleaning as he forlornly stood there. Ending it with "Chigara pasi!" (Now go sit down!). Even teachers of kindergarten classes show more respect than that for their pupils.

At past rallies and Zanu-PF Politiburo meetings she has claimed that she has a right to sit next to the president. It is clear in her mind the fact that she sleeps with Robert Mugabe gives her more authority than his official deputies.

She has unashamedly used that self-granted authority to wreak havoc in Zanu-PF and the Zimbabwe government. She effectively haunted one of Mugabe's deputies, Joice Mujuru, out of the party and government, throwing a stream of invective and insults after her.

Zimbabwe officials mostly deferred to her out of respect for her husband. Most of their complaints have been under the table, out of the public eye. However Grace herself brought to light some of what was being said under the table when she thundered at a rally, "Handizi hure raMugabe." (I am not Mugabe's prostitute.)

Everyone knows Mugabe has a hectic travel schedule. I know quite a number of Zimbabweans have been saying that is because of the 'young wife syndrome'. However as age has caught up with him he has looked increasingly frail. He has been unable to keep up the hectic schedule, so Grace has increasingly taken to travelling on her own.

Apparently it has never dawned to her that when she travels on her own she doesn't enjoy the protection of her husband's status. Nor does she carry any status incumbent with being a government official because she is not one.

Previously she was involved in a similar incident when she launched herself catlike, claws, fangs and all, at a reporter in Hong Kong. On that occasion she was in the company in the company of her husband, whose diplomatic immunity was extendable to his accompanying family members.

In South African instance the storm caught her without her umbrella. She was alone on a private visit without her husband.

She needs someone brave enough to tell her 'Empress, you are naked." The authority she granted herself in the Zimbabwe government is like bond notes. It cannot be exported to foreign governments.

I am sure there is a lot of quiet glee in Zimbabwe government circles, what we call in ChiKaranga (Shona) 'laughter that doesn't escape the ribs'. Many are quietly reciting the ChiKaranga saying "Zvaiwana ngwarati kudya ivete" (Finally the sable has been caught eating while lying down).

Her only possible saving grace is that the ANC is strong allies with Zanu-PF and they run the South African government. They might decide to do a Bashir on her. She can be Guptaed out of the country through an airforce base or granted immunity.

However it does not help her case that she is not being contrite and apologetic. Instead those acting for her have variously planted rumours that the victim attacked her. Or that she was a drug supplier for the errant Mugabe children.

In the first case her bodyguards should be fired immediately. How can they allow the First Lady to fight tooth and nail for thirty minutes to defend herself against a slight twenty-year old female while they watch.

In either case she should have shown trust in the South African authorities by reporting the transgressions against her. My advice to them is to stop the evasive nonsense. They should focus on getting a settlement.

Never mind what AfriForum says. Settlements are routinely made in some criminal cases. Bill Clinton settled with Paula Jones over more serious allegations than assault. This is a relatively minor case and the only reason to rule out settlement is to maximize the humiliation of Grace Mugabe.

Obviously that is an outcome the they are interested in. However despite their high horse, their motives seem less than noble. Some people are already crying racism over their involvement in the case.

Nonetheless there is no denying that the empress has just discovered that she is naked. There is no authority in being the wife of a president or even a queen. Prince Philip of Britain regularly gets taken to the cleaners for mere slips of the tongue.