http://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/362/47411mbeki.jpgAzad Essa speaks to Grace Kwinjeh, Chairperson of the Zimbabwe Diaspora Forum on South Africa, foreign aid, the MDC and the role of the Zimbabwean diaspora in bringing about change, amongst other things

GRACE KWINJEH: The Zimbabwe Diaspora Forum (ZDF) was launched in 2005 to bring together a plethora of Zimbabweans civil society organizations and individuals. It is platform to initiate dialogue, network and build a community of Zimbabweans abroad committed to lobbying for a new democratic Zimbabwe. While the world waits with bated breath too witness how Robert Mugabe deals with a new expected MDC victory, Zimbabweans in exile just cannot wait to get back home.

AZAD ESSA: Tell us more about the ZDF?

GRACE KWINJEH: We are 3 million Zimbabweans in exile. This forum was launched in December 2007, with the view to unite the diaspora, to create dialogue and networking. We also deal with specific issues to do with health, issues of access and education of children in the diaspora. We are essentially a platform that brings together a diverse group of Zimbabweans in exile, and these include professionals working abroad to organizations on the grassroots level.

AZAD ESSA: So much is said to rest on the outcome of these elections. Why so?

GRACE KWINJEH: For many of us, we want to go home. We want to reconnect with our family. As long as there is political conflict, we cannot return. The elections are crucial, and with indications there might be a regime change, if so, and if this is handled well, we will be home sooner than later.

AZAD ESSA: If Mugabe has indeed lost the elections - does he have the muscle and support to continue ruling Zimbabwe?

GRACE KWINJEH: It depends, if he concedes that he has lost the elections, then he cannot do much. However, if he does not concede, then we have a problem. The balance of power lies with the security forces and the side they end up supporting will largely determine the outcome. There is a lot of anxiety and speculation in this regard.

AZAD ESSA: It is reported that even his closest allies are advising Mugabe to quit - what is he hoping to achieve with delaying the results?

GRACE KWINJEH: We are all wondering! He is even printing too much money. In fact, economically, I don't see him holding the country for even a month more. There is no capacity for a run-off. This was the opportunity to lay the platform for a proper framework, involving democratic reform and reconstruction of the economy.

AZAD ESSA: But if Mugabe stepped down in respect of the outcome: Wouldn't this be ironic?

GRACE KWINJEH: Yes it would be. The chances that he steps down without charges against him for his acts of brutality during certain parts of this tenure as President is quite slim. But the opposition party has been careful not to suggest that he will be charged, but this does not stop an individual to charge him, especially through using international legal instruments.

AZAD ESSA: What does this reaction tell you about Mugabe's pre-election expectations?

GRACE KWINJEH: He insisted he wanted it now. You will recall that the MDC wanted it in June, but it is clear he underestimated how unpopular he had become in his own party. He was unprepared and misread the political climate. If he unleashes violence, he will be condemned by SADC and the international community. He has no option but to exit gracefully.

AZAD ESSA: What would an MDC victory mean for Zimbabwe?

GRACE KWINJEH: Firstly, a breath of fresh air. Secondly, Zimbabwe will become part of the community of nations once more. Thirdly, much needed AID and assistance would return. And lastly, it would mean that Zimbabwe would be run by a new government with a lot of repair work. The people of Zimbabwe will have expectations, for we will be looking at a government emerging out of the social liberation movement - with an understanding of the multifaceted crisis at hand - the people will want results immediately. This is going to be very difficult.

AZAD ESSA: So much talk about aid - and the role of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank - plans that Robert Mugabe rejected a number of times, for a number of reasons including the conditions of such economic assistance. Working under the tutelage of the IMF and World Bank - is this the way forward?

GRACE KWINJEH: This is one the challenges that Tsvangerai and the MDC faces. The MDC emerged from the union movement, and so how it balances its ideological stance with the literally the desperate need for economic aid - and we cannot deny aid - is what is going to be very tricky. We need aid; there is not question about this. But to secure aid immediately while considering the sustainable economic advancement of all of Zimbabwe will be a very difficult path to follow. We are surrounded by nations that have assumed political change but with economies that have not reduced economic inequality. Kenya and Zambia are prime examples, and of course so is South Africa. How they find a balance, a very tricky balance to negotiate.

AZAD ESSA: President Thabo Mbeki's stance of not interfering just yet - is this the right approach?

GRACE KWINJEH: It is not. Things are deteriorating fast and he must reconsider. He must reconsider a more robust approach. The war veterans are said to be intimidating in certain areas. To what extent this will continue, is unknown.

AZAD ESSA: But the South African government has been ambiguous in its approach to the Mugabe regime, and that is putting it quite mildly. How do you see their role now?

GRACE KWINJEH: South Africa must play a role in resolving the election crisis. They don't benefit from an influx of Zimbabweans and we want to go home. The South African government issued a statement that the will of the people must be respected. How big and how robust a commitment this implies is yet to be tested. Looking forward with regards to the MDC assuming power and political shifts in South Africa - especially post-Polokwane - a more trade union backed ANC has come to the fore. Given the COSATU-MDC link, and the political focus (in South Africa) somewhat shifting, we are looking forward to a good partnership between a potential new government and the ANC

AZAD ESSA: So we wait for the courts to decide?

GRACE KWINJEH: Well for the MDC - yes. But on the Zanu PF side, there is all this talk of recounting votes and all that. To sum up, it is a total mess. Yet, we are optimistic that Zimbabwe, as indicated by the people, are geared for change, but we know it is going to be a very hard transition.

AZAD ESSA: Finally, you mentioned a few times that the diaspora wants to return home. What do you see as the role of the diaspora in this process?

GRACE KWINJEH: The diaspora is crucial. But before we return home, we will have to know that we have some sort of security there. Will we have jobs to support our families? Poverty drove many out?we have had qualified teachers who have swept in South Africa, and who would rather do that than suffer in Zimbabwe. We do not want to pre-empt these things, but we have started discussions - to start programs to get the diaspora back home - not unlike those that took place when Zimbabwe found independence in 1980 and what happened after the fall of Apartheid in South Africa. The challenge is indeed to get people back and into the reconstruction process.

*Azad Essa is a researcher & journalist at the IOLS-Research Unit, UKZN.

**Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

Celine Tan argues that "the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness may have the effect of circumscribing national sovereignty and country autonomy over development policies contrary to its stated principles of country ownership and mutual accountability."

Two recent studies have highlighted the propensity of new modalities of aid and aid harmonisation processes under the Paris Declaration framework to increase rather than reduce donor interventions in aid recipient countries and exacerbating the imbalances of power between donor and recipient countries.

The Paris Declaration was adopted in 2005 as a roadmap to increase the quality of aid, and development assistance is increasingly influenced by whether the recipient developing countries comply with the Declaration's principles.

In a report prepared for the UN Human Rights Council?s High-Level Task Force on the Implementation of the Right to Development released earlier this year, Roberto Bissio, executive director of the Third World Institute and Social Watch based in Montevideo, Uruguay, argued that the relatively minor gains in efficiency and reduction of some transaction costs in the aid process are often overridden by the asymmetrical conditions under which negotiations are taking place between donors and recipients within the Paris Declaration framework.

Meanwhile, the findings of a study by the European Network on Debt and Development (Eurodad) released two weeks ago showed that donors have continued to undermine policy ownership in low-income developing countries by imposing their own priorities and policies on developing country governments through new aid instruments while marginalising the voice and participation by citizens and civil society groups in the process.

Taken together, these studies highlight the danger that the new architecture for negotiating and delivering concessional financing to developing countries under the rubric of the Paris Declaration may have the converse effect of reducing rather than improving the efficacy of development assistance.

They demonstrate that increased coordination of aid policies by developed countries can in practice work towards undermining rather than supporting global partnerships for development, including those under the Millennium Declaration, and create new forms of conditionalities on developing countries.

The Paris Declaration is a non-binding declaration that was endorsed by a group of developed and developing countries in 2005, following on from a series of high-level inter-governmental forums on aid effectiveness and harmonisation.

It has a total of 115 signatories to date and claims to lay down ?a roadmap to improve the quality of aid and its impact on development with 56 partnership commitments organised around the five key principles: ownership, alignment, harmonisation, managing for results, and mutual accountability.

Compliance with the principles of the Paris Declaration is measured using 12 different indicators and development financing is now increasingly channelled through countries? compliance with these indicators.

According to Bissio's extensive study of the Paris Declaration framework, the Declaration fails to provide the institutional mechanisms to address the asymmetries in power between donors and creditors on one hand and individual aid recipient countries on the other. He argues that institutional ownership of the Paris Declaration process remains vested with the OECDs Development Assistance Committee (DAC) and the World Bank where donors and creditors have exclusive or majority control, with little or no developing country voice or vote.

Bissio's report further points out that for recipient countries, the Paris Declaration creates a new level of supranational economic governance above the World Bank and the regional development banks, with the OECD?s DAC comprising of the same western governments who control the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and who contribute to the Bank?s concessional lending facility, the International Development Association (IDA).

At the country level this new international governance increases the asymmetry between the aid recipient country and its donors and creditors, which gather together as a single group in the new aid modalities ... While this is intended to save costs and make procedures easier for the recipient country (and thus make aid more efficient), the inherent risks of such an increased imbalance in negotiating power at the country level are not compensated in any way by the international mechanisms set in motion by the [Paris Declaration].

Although developing and developed countries are represented in equal numbers in the Working Party on Aid Effectiveness which has the responsibility for managing the operationalisation of the Paris Declaration principles, the presence of institutions controlled by OECD members tilts the balance in favour of the latter, said the report.

Further, in such an ad hoc new body, developing countries lack the tradition and expertise of their own negotiating groups that they have put together over the years in other international negotiating fora (such as the G77 in the UN or G20 and G33 and other regional groupings in the WTO).

Under the Paris Declaration framework, donors and recipients are not peers, as recipient countries are penalised if they do not implement conditions for assessing financing under the framework but they do not have a corresponding mechanism for penalising the donors and/or creditors, the report argues.

Bissio's study found that the complex set of assessment criteria and definition of indicators by which the Paris Declaration is reviewed, the associated new conditionality packages for disbursement of aid under new mechanisms such as direct budget support and sector-wide approaches (SWAPs) and criteria for evaluating recipient countries' governance systems as part of the new aid system are all ultimately decided upon by the DAC, in close working relation with the World Bank?.

These findings are complemented by results of the Eurodad study which showed that the Paris Declaration?s measure of country ownership is the presence of a good quality and operational national development strategy as determined by the World Bank.

The Eurodad report also argues that in spite of the Paris Declaration's rhetoric on mutual accountability, donors are rarely held accountable for the quality of their aid to developing countries.

Instead, it found that the focus of the Paris Declaration has been ?entirely on the recipient government?s responsibilities and fails to recognise the steps that donors must take to create space for recipient governments to fulfil these responsibilities.

At the same time, recipient governments rarely take the lead in determining aid policies and ?are only negotiating around the edges if at all when it comes to improving the quality of the resources on offer. Case studies from seven low-income countries showed that power imbalances and weak capacity continue to limit developing country governments? ability to negotiate with donors and creditors on the conditions of their financing. The high aid dependency of some recipient countries shifts the balance of power to the donors,? says Eurodad.

Both reports also highlight the undermining of national policy space which accompanies the new modalities of aid championed by the Paris Declaration, including those centred on the World Bank and IMF-led Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) and PRSP-linked financing instruments, such as budget support whereby financing is channelled direct into a country?s budget in support of a general policy framework.

The Eurodad report shows that the complex array of structures which have grown up around the PRSP process where donors and recipient governments gather to discuss policies and programmes under the guise of policy coordination have increased donor interventions in country?s development strategies and economic policies.

As donors increase the amount of aid they give either through direct budget support or to sector (e. g. agriculture, health, education) ministries, they also want to have a say on government policy in that sector, says the report.

Not only do the donors' constant presence and increased discussions with governments on the minutiae of government policy place additional pressure on overburdened administrations in developing countries, they also enable donors to get increasingly involved in the details of national policymaking.?

The Eurodad report argues that the conditionalities accompanying new aid instruments such as budget support has therefore shrunk the political space that such an instrument was supposed to have provided.

It says: Budget support has come hand in hand with more intrusion by donors in government policy making through ever more detailed matrices of policy conditions and performance indicators ... usually laid out in the Performance Assessment Framework (PAF) - the conditionality matrix attached to budget support.

Conditionalities may also be attached through the Paris Declaration indicators themselves. For example, according to the Paris Declaration, donors are required to increase the use of country systems, including national procedures for public financial management and public procurement. However, recipient countries must in turn commit towards improving such systems in order for them to be considered reliable by donors.

Indicators for reviewing compliance with the Paris Declaration principles in these areas include adherence of developing countries to broadly accepted good practices or implementation of a reform programme to achieve such practices. These good practices in turn are based upon the OECDs indicators which include the opening up of national procurement systems to qualified foreign firms, according to Bissio's report.

This amounts to a controversial conditionality of liberalising public procurement system and undermining developing countries' right to use national procurement systems as a development tool, and one which goes against the developing countries demands against the Singapore issues in the World Trade Organisation (WTO), says Bissio.

In adopting some of the reports recommendations at its fourth session in January this year, the High-Level Task Force on the Right to Development called for greater efforts to promote untied aid aligned with national priorities, particularly in the fields of procurement and financial management in order to meet the ownership requirements under the Paris Declaration and to make use of opportunities to build on the congruence between the principles of aid effectiveness and the right to development?

*Celina Tan is a Senior Researcher at the Third World Network.

**The two reports referred here have come at a crucial time for the Paris Declaration in the run-up to the third High Level Conference on Aid Effectiveness to be held in Accra, Ghana in September 2008 which will review the operationalisation of the Paris Declaration framework. They can be downloaded at: and [email protected] or comment online at http://www.pambazuka.org/

http://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/364/47409uga.jpgAs Uganda tries to find peace and justice, Doreen Lwanga grapples with the questions: Is there a price that is just too high? Can there be peace without justice?

It is horrifying that there are certain people in favor of buying peace supposedly to convert warlords into civilians, by giving them either monetary or political to lay down their arms and rejoin the society that they have traumatized and destroyed for decades. Several voices including those who call themselves human rights activists so loudly support reconciliation with rebel groups, and many have created their careers out of “negotiating with rebels” and reconciling with warlords. To me this brings back the question…whose rights matter anyway…in the campaign for peace? Most importantly, how did we get there –buying justice from warlords?

In Uganda where I am from, the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) under the leadership of Joseph Kony have managed to turn themselves into innocent victims of a ‘greed’ political leader –President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni (M7). Many Ugandan political commentators and “peace activists” argue that President M7 sought to score political points when he forwarded a case against Joseph Kony and the LRA senior commanders to the International Criminal Court (ICC). Opponents of this ICC indictment of Kony and his senior commanders argue that it has sabotaged transition to peace in Uganda—particularly in Northern Uganda which is the hardest hit by the war between the LRA rebels and the Uganda government for more than 20 years. But is this allegation really true or is Kony simply scoring apologists pity? A look back into history of the peace process shows that the LRA rebels had not laid down their arms when President M7 referred Kony to the ICC. They were still kidnapping, maiming, abducting, raping and destroying entire livelihoods in Northern Uganda. Now the same group is comfortably pausing as peace spokespersons on behalf of the people of Uganda.

On the BBC Africa Today Podcast of Friday 07 March 2008, Dr. David Matanga, LRA Head of Delegation and Spokesman had this to say, “….Ugandans have said, they do not want the ICC…they want peace now. They do not want to hear Mr. Ocampo (ICC Chief Prosecutor) speaking everytime. He is not Ugandan. We are Ugandans. You think only White justice can work….”

Since when did the LRA start speaking on behalf of Ugandans? Interestingly, overtime the LRA voice on international airwaves is overshadowing that of the elected leader and spokesperson for the people of Uganda –President M7. One wonders whether his silence on the LRA issue proves previous observations; that he forwarded the Kony case to the ICC to score political points. First, President M7 went internationally public to the ICC when he needed international legitimacy for his regime, and now he chooses silence regarding the LRA issue to score national points as a ‘man for peace’.

Fortunately for the LRA, they have a platform larger than the people of Northern Uganda whose livelihoods they have destroyed. I happened to be in Kampala around November 2007 when negotiations between the LRA negotiation team and the Uganda government were taking place. A friend of mine was also participating in closed-door negotiations at Hotel Africana with included several LRA senior officials, officials of the Uganda government and members of civil society organizations. My friend asked if I had a camera to take pictures of them, and thanks to my ‘prying and tourist’ nature I had one with me. The meeting was followed by evening tea with lavish hors d’oeuvres, as is the culture with most of Ugandans large NGO and government meetings held in hotels. For my political mind, it was an opportunity to engage in ‘investigative conversations’ with the LRA team and put out some questions that have bothered me about this LRA peace negotiation.

I paused the question to my friends whether it was really justifiable to spend money on rebels? That the government can use taxpayers’ money to dine, house, transport and maintain the lifestyles of rebels in 5-star hotels around Kampala. Yet the taxpayers can neither get a decent public transport system nor proper sewage disposal in their neighborhoods. Secondly, I was shocked to see people designated as rebels walking around Kampala freely with bodyguards without being arrested by security forces. My naivety has always made me believe that rebels are unwanted people and need to be controlled and prevented from mixing with the civilian public. Even people in Northern Uganda whose lives have been most destroyed do not get this kind of protection but are instead tucked away in squalid internally displaced people’s camps. Joseph Kony can demand mobile phone airtime and the government readily sends it to him. Alternatively, the so-called humanitarian agencies operating in Uganda quickly pick up the tab to facilitate the lavish lives of Kony and his rebel gang in the name of ‘negotiating peace’ for Northern Uganda.

Amazingly my ‘human rights friends’ are comfortable with this modus operandi. Why should we buy peace from Kony and his rebels when we have failed (and objected) to hold them accountable for crimes against humanity, crimes against natural justice or crimes against peace? There is no evidence that buying peace creates peace, a popular international diplomacy game played mostly by the United States. It has not worked in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Sudan or Somalia, and it will not work with Northern Uganda. On the contrary, buying peace and feeding rebels/paramilitary groups has prolonged wars and destruction in Cambodia, Horn of Africa, Sudan, Colombia, Afghanistan and Iraq, among others. Already, Kony recently put his foot down and refused to sign the peace deal with the government of Uganda on Thursday April 3 2008 in Juba reportedly because he was sick. Yet he is not ashamed of putting up continued demands for ‘freebies’ at the expense of Ugandans. Since we have taken the lowest moral ground by feeding rebel groups, why not go ahead and ‘sniper their leaders’ as a tool for peaceful transition. It happened to reknown UNITA rebel leader, Jonas Savimbi, and now Angola is on the road to peace with many refugees returning home. If not, then we should use the Charles Taylor approach, track down warlords and forward them to international justice. It makes no sense buying peace with mobile phones, airtimes or political positions for those who have destroyed livelihoods and generations in the name of justice for warlords.

*Doreen Lwanga is a PanAfricanist who writes about African security and regionalism.

**Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

The Young Communist League of South Africa [YCLSA] had sent its delegation to Zimbabwe as observers in the recently held elections. The purpose of the mission was to make our own observation independent of various observer missions.

The delegation was led by the Deputy National Secretary, Cde. Khayelihle Nkwanyana, and comprised of 12 members of the YCLSA drawn from district, provincial and National Committees. The delegation was based in the three main regions of Zimbabwe, which are Bulawayo, Harare and the Midlands.

INTIMIDATION OF THE DELEGATION

It should be noted that the delegation observed constatnt surveillance from the Central Intelligence Officers, which led to three members of the delegation returning to South Africa before they were due. In the same vein, one members of then delegation who was based in Bulawayo was interogated by the CIO. This shows the level of intimidation that is still prevalent in Zimbabwe.

We are however pleased that the Zimbabwe government allowed our delegation to enter and leave the country without any major intereference of the mission.

We engaged various formations and structures that are active in Zimbabwe. Amongst those were our interactions with civil society organizations, the attendance of political rallies of the contesting parties. We engaged with the Youth structures such as the NYDT, student formation ZINASU and individual candidates contesting in constituencies for Parliament and Local government from all the political parties.

ABSENT CONDITIONS FOR FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS

Our observation as the YCL is that conditions towards elections were not conducive to be regarded as "free and fair elections" because of the following factors:

1. The State controlled media (the Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation and the paper – Herald) were openly campaigning for the incumbent President, vilifying the contesting opponents and giving more TV airtime and paper spaces to the ZANU-PF.

2. No voter education done given that these elections were harmonized for the first time with Presidential, Senate, Parliament and Local government level.

3. Voters roll was not given to the opposition, this underpinned the court challenge against the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission and dead people in the voters roll.

4. Delimitation of constituencies in favour of the ruling party.

5. Polling station where there was no people residing in the area.

6. The Army generals who threaten Zimbabweans that they will not support any Head of State except Mugabe.

7. Zimbabwe Electoral Commission is ran by senior leaders of the Zanu PF.

The current electoral results which are displayed outside the various polling stations shows that the MDC has won this current electoral process in all the four categories. The remaining result for the Presidential contest is reported to be in favour of Morgan Tswangirai. There is fear of rigging the Presidential leg, thus the delay of the announcement of the results.

As the YCL we are calling for the ZANU PF and the current President of Zimbabwe to accept the will of the people. He must accept the outcomes without any attempt of rigging.

(The actual parliamentary votes as tabulated by the opposition has MDC-Tsvangirai at 14, Zanu at 2 and MDC-Mutambara at 1. See

INTERVENTION BY SADC, AFRICAN UNION AND UNITED NATIONS ON THE POST ELECTIONS' PROCESS

We are calling, once more, the SADC and AU to immediately deploy the peace keeping mission in Zimbabwe to avoid any instability that might be generated by the electoral outcomes. There is fear for the Kenyan situation if Mugabe force his way back. And there is fear about the Army and police staging a coup if the opposition takes the Presidency.

In this regard, we call for the immediate deployment of SADC and United Nations Peace Keeping forces so as to avert any attempt towards sinking Zimbabwe further into violence.

This should serve as a post elections process undertaken by all the parties involved in the elections and all the countries in the region.

**Please send comments to [email protected] or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

http://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/362/47407onion.jpg Nderitu argues that development, security and human rights should be the priorities in Kenya post conflict reconstruction; and not creating a bloated cabinet under the guise of power-sharing

It’s official. We have a grossly overpaid cabinet of 40, the largest ever in East Africa. The 34- 44- 40 cabinet debate in Kenya is an ominous pointer to what our politicians consider priorities; positions and not needs. Yet our needs are the embers which opportunely stoked ignite into conflict. Kofi Annan argued as UN Secretary General in 2005 that we cannot enjoy development without security, security without development, and we will not enjoy either without respect for human rights and that unless all these causes are advanced, none will succeed. This are needs, not positions. He repeated this statement when he came to Nairobi to mediate. What does this statement have to do with our post conflict priorities? Let us use a human rights education training method on analysis, the conflict onion to understand what he meant. To do so we have to peel the onion together.

Experience teaches us that in peaceful situations people relate and act on the basis of their actual needs (what we have to have). The lack of basic access to must have needs lays the basis for the presence of structural violence characterised by resentment which does not necessarily translate into open conflict. As instability rises, people coalesce around collective interests (what we want) rather than needs. With the escalation of the conflict people then withdraw to certain positions (what we say that we want). The positions we then demand at this point and as apart of conditions for peace deals have their roots in the dynamics of the conflict but have little to do with actual needs.

In Kenya, the needs are the core of our onion, the first ring of the onion the interests and the outer ring of the onion the positions. Let’s peel the outer ring. What are the politicians saying that we want? Positions in Government for all parties because it’s the only way to for everyone to benefit and guarantee peace. Let’s peel the second ring - But what are our interests? What do we want? Equality and non-discrimination on all fronts especially ethnicity, disability, gender and equitable access to resources, participation and inclusion, accountability and the rule of Law. The interests are in their totality human rights based approach to development principles.

LET’S NOW TAKE THE CORE OF THE ONION APART. WHAT MUST WE HAVE?

We urgently need roads in good conditions; to markets for our produce, to a hospital with medicine, to a school with teachers and books, to a water point. We need security. We need leaders we can speak to who will listen just as we do as they address political rallies and religious gatherings. We need the IDP‘s resettled, MP’s salaries reduced and our taxes manageable, we must have an end to impunity and a Truth and Justice and Reconciliation Commission. We must have support for arts and sports and debunk the myth that education is the only way out of poverty for our youth. Sportsmen like Catherine Ndereva, Paul Tergat and musicians like Tony Nyandundo did not hone their skills in examination rooms. We need to afford maize and wheat flour, to get direct benefits for the cane and coffee farmer. We must have our textile industry back on its feet again. We need opportunities for the neglected North Eastern Province. We must have massive land education initiatives similar to the HIV-AIDs campaigns at the community and policy level. We need well remunerated Doctors, nurses, University lecturers and law enforcement officers. We need jobs for our youths.

Peeling onions is a tear shedding business so let’s ask the loaded question; to what extent is the creation of a bloated cabinet based on prioritising of positions truly suited to promoting Kenyans needs and interests? Numbers do not mean delivery of services to meet our needs. Kenya’s post conflict reconstruction will be founded on the basis of solutions to needs and well-understood interests, not political positions.Granted; conflicts do undergo transformations that have nothing to do with the original reasons such as the need for self protection, revenge or the economic or political opportunities offered by the conflict.

But working out the conflict issues (at the level of the various positions and interests) and the conflict causes (at the level of the interests and needs) from wherever you stand will help us all examine our own positions and assist us gain an understanding of the interests and needs of the other side. This will help us lay the foundations for the permanent resettlement of the IDP’S hand in hand with enforcement of the rule of law. Try it. You will be surprised that our original needs are in fact perfectly compatible with each other and that in fact Positive peace encompasses human security, stability and development as needs, not positions as priorities to guarantee peace. And that a cabinet of 40 just adds to our socio economic dilemmas. Brace yourselves Kenyans. We are in for tough times.

*Alice Nderitu is a Nderitu is a senior human rights officer, Kenya National Commission on Human Rights.

**Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

http://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/362/47404flag.jpgWe the under-signed Zimbabwean women, in our capacity as THE FEMINIST POLITICAL EDUCATION PROJECT (FePEP), urgently call for an end to the political impasse that our country is in. Over a week after we voted in the harmonized elections, we note with great dismay that the results of the Presidential elections are yet to be released. The country is in limbo. Violence, poverty, HIV & AIDS and deterioration of social services continue to disproportionately affect women and girls. We voted on the 29th of March for our representatives in Parliament and for a Head of State in the hope that collectively they can address these problems. As citizens we demand to know and see the fruits of our vote, which would affirm our rights to participate in politics.

We call for the immediate release of the presidential election results. But regardless of who wins this elections among the four presidential candidates, it is our view that the country is too politically polarized to move on. Whoever becomes our next President has the Herculean task of bringing all sides together to think nationally, and in the best interests of all Zimbabwean citizens, not just their own party, or personal self interest. We believe that neither Mr Robert Mugabe nor Mr Morgan Tsvangirai is trusted enough by everyone to foster unity and national coherence that will be required to move forward. We strongly believe that this is what is at the heart of the present impasse. Equally we do not believe that a run-off will be in our best interests as women. We are too familiar with the violence that was meted upon numerous of us from 1890 when the colonialists came into our country right up to the most recent elections. Chief among these forms of violence is sexual violence, and it concomitant implication, HIV infection. Zimbabwean women now have the lowest life expectancy world wide because of HIV & AIDS, 34 years. We can not afford yet another pointless violent election that will slice more years off our lives.

We boldly suggest that all political parties and players in Zimbabwe come together in a national Transitional Authority, (TA). The TA should be headed by a person who can be trusted by both ZANU PF and the MDC formations. She or he must not be the leader of a registered political party. The TA will be composed of up to 15 members, ensuring geographic, ethnic, and gender balance. We believe that such an interim authority will provide a moderating voice and can pave the way for a government of national unity that can steer Zimbabwe to a more democratic dispensation, guided by a new constitution.

We therefore call upon the Southern African Development Community, supported by the African Union, and the United Nations, to bring all the parties in Zimbabwe together to discuss a move towards this interim arrangement. In this regard the South African President Mr Thabo Mbeki should continue his mediation role. It is our contention that the people of Zimbabwe are so deeply polarized yet again and can not possibly negotiate on their own.

Our position as FePEP reflects and amplifies the voices of so many women, who are tired of seeing their country torn apart by selfish male egos, the quest for unbridled power, and total disregard for citizens’ rights.

Signed,
Teresa Mugadzam, Isabella Matambanadzo, Thoko Matshe, Everjoice Win, Shereen Essof, Juliana Manjengwa, Karin Alexander, Janah Ncube, Priscllah, Misihairabwi-Mushonga Revai Makanje

**Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

http://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/362/47403beat.jpgZimbabwe Peace Project (ZPP) as an organisation has strength in its permanent deployment of two monitors in each electoral constituency of Zimbabwe ensuring a grassroots presence. ZPP monitors work in the communities of their ordinary residence, which gives ZPP the leverage to sense potential violations and record incidents swiftly and discretely with a high degree of accuracy. ZPP received a worrisome report last week of the existence of torture bases in Mutoko and Mudzi constituencies in Mashonaland East province and our Provincial Coordinator took time during the weekend to investigate the incidents and gave us the following report:

War Veterans have unleashed terror in Mashonaland East with the assistance of the ruling party Zanu PF. War Veterans, youths and war collaborators are beating and torturing suspected opposition party supporters and local observers of the harmonised elections like ZESN.

MUTOKO SOUTH CONSTITUENCY

About ten war veterans using a new B1800 truck and two Toyota trucks all armed are moving around Mutoko beating up people suspected to have voted for MDC Tsvangirai they are forcing villagers to attend meetings during the day and in the evening with the help of Zanu PF youths beat up people. Bases of torture have been established at Corner Store, Kushinga, Jari, Nyahondo and Rukanda.

Last week on Friday, 11 April 2008 around 1900hrs about twenty people were beaten at Corner Store Base and those assaulted included Desmond Dovi residing in Village 13. The war veterans are led by one Chimhini and youths are led by Brighton Mutendera and Jimmy Chivambu. Our Coordinator spoke to a policeman who confirmed the beatings and the bases. The Coordinator said all those who observed elections on the ZESN ticket have been allegedly listed for beatings.

MUTOKO NORTH CONSTITUENCY

Armed veterans are moving around villages forcing people to meetings where suspected MDC members are being beaten up. Bases have been established at Charehwa, Chitekwe, Nyamuzuwe, All souls mission where doctors have fled for their lives.

On Thursday, 10 April a police officer by the name Ngorima said war veterans visited Mutoko police station where they ordered the Member in Charge to call all police officers at the station for a meeting. They were allegedly threatened with death if they arrest any of the perpetrators and were also ordered that during the run off all police officers should cast their votes at the office before the member in charge. Bases were also established in Mutoko East at Lot and Kawere villages and Bondamakara and Chikuhwa schools.

MUDZI CONSTITUENCY

Bases have been established at Nyamapanda, Dendera, Kotwa, Suswe and Chifamba. The same war veterans stated above are holding meetings in villages and people are being beaten. On Thursday, 10 April 2008 three MDC activists were heavily assaulted at Kotwa and are detained at Kotwa hospital. These war veterans have instructed all hospitals not to attend to these victims. ZPP is still trying to establish the identity of the three MDC activists.

MUREHWA NORTH CONSTITUENCY

On Friday 11 April 2008, war veterans and Zanu PF youths held a meeting at Murehwa Centre around 1600hrs. All shops were closed and war veterans fired two shots in the air to instil fear in the people. At around 17.30 hrs more than 100 MDC supporters toyi toyied in the centre and the war veterans and Zanu PF youths were outnumbered and were forced to disperse.

In Matenda village two ZESN observers Blessing Chirambadoro and another were threatened with eviction and are now living in fear.

MARONDERA EAST

ZPP Provincial Coordinator also visited the constituency and reported that by Friday 11 April 2008 three houses had been burnt down and people were being assaulted by Zanu PF supporters. On Friday three MDC activists were heavily assaulted at Rapid farm and they are being guarded by Zanu PF youths so that they do not access treatment. The victims were assaulted by war veterans.

MASHONA LAND WEST

One polling agent Aaron and three MDC activists Broderick Marigawa, Taka Ganje and Caleb Marufu were for the past two weeks living in mountains in Kanzamba village, Makonde constituency. The four are said to have ran away from their homes after serious threats of violence from Zanu PF men namely, Black Jesus of Mhangura, Thomas Ganure a soldier from the village, Lovemore Mupoto, Marko Gungungu, a Mashintini and one Brown all from the same constituency are said to be the perpetrators haunting the polling agent and the activists. The polling agent’s plight has been allegedly heightened because his parents belong to Zanu PF and are aiding the perpetrators in threatening the activists. The four are in dire need of legal and counselling services.

As ZPP we are getting frustrated with the situation prevailing in Mashonaland East and Mashonaland West and in other parts of Zimbabwe in direct contravention of the country’s laws and international laws that the Government is a signatory. These actions should come to a quick stop as no people should be terrorised continuously with perpetrators threatening police officers that they should not carry out their law enforcing duties by arresting perpetrators and intimidating Doctors and victims that they should not get medical assistance. These are serious forms of politically motivated violations and they should just come to a stop in the spirit of letting Peace Prevail.

Let Peace Prevail

*ZPP envision a Zimbabwe that would transform into a society that cherishes the pursuit and realisation of justice, freedom, peace, human dignity and development.

**Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

Raj Patel and Eric Holt-Giménez look at the food protests as "angry rebellions of hungry people fed up with the inequitable global food system.' They argue that neoliberalism and global capitalism have eroded policies that would have protected the already poor from sliding into starvation.

It was just a matter of time… and not long at that. The world food crisis and the explosion of “food riots” across the globe has been turned into an opportunity. By whom? By the same institutions that created the conditions for the crisis in the first place: proponents of the new Green Revolution.

In their April 10 editorial entitled The World Food Crisis, the New York Times warns that increases of 25-50% in the price of food and basic grains have sparked unrest “from Haiti to Egypt.” The Times rightly lays part of the blame on the doorstep of northern countries’ thirst for ethanol, pointing out that the substitution of fuel crops for food crops, “[Accounts] for at least half of the rise in world corn demand in each of the past three years.” A rise in demand means a rise in price. This puts food out of reach of poor consumers.

But then confusing economic demand with actual availability, the Times jumps to a dubious solution. Quoting World Bank president Robert Zoellick, the paper calls for “[A] ‘green revolution’ to increase farm productivity and raise crop yields in Africa.” This was of course, a likely response from the World Bank, the institution that, along with the International Monetary Fund, forcibly applied the Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) responsible for destroying the capacity of African nations to develop or protect their own domestic agricultural systems from the dumping of subsidized grain from the U.S. and Europe. Over the same 25 years in which SAPs were being implemented, the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) invested over 40% if its $350 million/year budget in Africa’s “Green Revolution.” The result? A big zero. Actually, it was worse, because as African marketing boards, agricultural ministries, national research programs and basic infrastructure fell under the scythe of the mighty SAPs, Africa’s agricultural systems steadily eroded. Now their entire food systems are hopelessly vulnerable to economic and environmental shock—hence the severity of the current food price inflation crisis.

How do CGIAR and other Green Revolution champions explain this debacle? The Green Revolution, they claim, ‘bypassed” Africa. If that is the case, then where on earth did CGIAR spend all that money? If not, and the Green Revolution was simply a failure, then how will more of the same solve the present food crisis?

Of course, the Green Revolution is not just one institution, and it is not static. The new genetically-engineered Green Revolution is a conglomeration of public and private research institutions, supported by both tax dollars and conditional investments from a handful of powerful seed/chemical and fertilizer monopolies. The Green Revolution is an industrial modernization paradigm, as well as a campaign for penetrating agricultural markets in the Global South. But above all, the Green Revolution is a political strategy designed to gain and keep control over the Global South’s food systems firmly in the hands of northern corporations and institutions. It is precisely this political dimension of the current food crisis that is so tacitly avoided by the New York Times, the World Bank, and other Green Revolution promoters.

The politics of food, however, are inescapable. Food First associate Raj Patel, author of the recently-released book Stuffed and Starved(http://stuffedandstarved.org/drupal/frontpage), points out that “food riots” have to be understood historically, in the context not of shortages, but of poverty, not of lack of technologies, but of lack of democracy.

“Historically,” writes Patel, “there are two things to look out for. The first is a sudden and severe entitlement gap; a gap between what people believe they’re entitled to and what they can in fact achieve. Agricultural prices have risen because of a perfect storm of biofuels, rising meat consumption, oil price increases, low grain reserves, and bad harvests. That inflation has meant that people believe they ought to be able to feed their families at one level, but end up being able to feed them significantly less. The existence and spread of this entitlement expectation gap is one of the things that matters in the precipitation of food riots.

But there’s a second element. Riots tend to occur in places where there isn’t any other means of making the government listen. It’s a sign, in other words, that democratic proscesses do not exist or have been exhausted. Haiti has long been beset by political instability, and now led by U.S. backed, president, René Préval. He recently commanded people to return to their homes, perhaps not realizing that through their protests, the people were commanding him to make their food cheaper…

But the real question here is why governments are unable to respond to the needs of their citizens. There are two answers. First, the policies that would mitigate the price rises (grain reserves, tariffs, social expenditure for poor people) have all been eroded by decades of neoliberal and free market global trade and development policy.

In order to implement this policy, governments have had to close their ears to the demands of their people. The World Bank won’t give loans without ‘structural adjustments’ that cut deeply into social programs. There has been a strong financial incentive, in other words, for governments to behave less democratically.”

The current protests—over 50 people have been killed in the last two months—are less chaotic riots of starving people than they are angry rebellions of hungry people fed up with the inequitable global food system. The solution to the present food crises is not bringing in the institutions of “disaster capitalism” that created the disaster in the first place. The solution is to democratize the world’s food systems, taking the control away from the handful of agri-food oligopolies and putting it back in the hands of the farmers and consumers who are supposed to benefit from agriculture.

*Raj Patel is the author of "Stuffed and Starved: The Hidden Battle for the World Food System" and Eric Holt-Gimenez is the Executive Director of Food First (www.foodfirst.org).

**Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

http://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/361/47261pills.jpgCarol B. Thompson argues that the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa will undermine nutrition, destroy indigenous seed varieties and knowledge systems and create dependency on patented seeds. She calls for a debate so that all the stakeholders can be involved in the future of food production in Africa

The Gates and Rockefeller Foundations propose to increase food production on the African continent, “eliminating hunger for 30-40 million people and sustainably moving 15-20 million people out of poverty,” through their initiative of an Alliance for a Green Revolution for Africa (www.agra.com).

We all share in the goal of eliminating hunger on the African continent. However, we are also aware of the risks to health and nutrition posed by the previous green revolution in Asia and Latin America. As farmers dedicated more and more land to growing new varieties of wheat, rice, and maize, less land was available to women to grow vegetables (vitamins, minerals), and the commercial production of pulses (protein) stagnated. How will this proposed “green revolution” affect production, food security and human health in Africa?

Similar to the green revolution of the 1960-70s, increasing yields of a few crops to provide food for the hungry remains the central justification for this proposed African green revolution. The 1960s varieties of seed required fertilisers, pesticides, and water at very specific times or the yield was worse than traditional varieties. Indian farmers, for example, did increase production of wheat ten-fold and of rice three-fold. Learning from this experience, the current AGRA initiative also includes training African scientists, setting up marketing networks of small seed companies, and credit schemes. Other major differences are that the seeds will be genetically modified (GMOs) and patented, in the 1960s in India, they remained in the public domain.

The benefit of increased yields, however, came with many environmental, economic and social costs in the green revolution on the 1960-70’s.. The massive increases in the use of fertilisers and pesticides contaminated the water and soil. Small-scale farmers could not sustain the purchase of all the inputs and had to sell their land. Studies in India show that only farmers with at least 6-8 hectares of land could afford the high-tech agricultural production. Inequality within villages increased, with many moving to the cities. As Secretary General U Thant summarised in 1970, “There is already a growing a body of relevant literature on the experience in various regions and localities which strongly suggests that the prosperity resulting from the Green Revolution is shared by a relatively few.”

The economic and social dangers of a “green revolution” for Africa are similar to those related to the commercialisation of health care: 1) piracy of both indigenous knowledge and plants (used for medicine and/or food); 2) privatisation of bioresources necessary for human health through patenting of plants; 3) privatisation of research which directs priorities and agendas. Rather than reducing hunger, these adverse outcomes could in fact reduce the food security of Africans, increase undernutrition and thus reduce immunity against disease.

Increased yields of one or two strains of one or two crops (“monoculture within monoculture,” as stated by a Tanzanian botanist) will not provide the basis for food security to support nutritional needs. The key to ending hunger is sustaining Africa’s food biodiversity, not reducing it to industrial monoculture. Currently, food for African consumption comes from about 2,000 different plants; in contrast, the US food base derives mainly from 12 plants. Narrowing plant diversity of food increases vulnerability for all because it a) reduces the variety of nutrients needed for human health, b) increases crop susceptibility to pathogens, and c) minimises the parent genetic material available for future breeding.

Manufacturing plants for food is very similar to manufacturing them for medicine. Indigenous knowledge designates a plant as important for nutrition or for medicinal purposes. But often, corporations simply take both the plants and the knowledge with no recognition, monetary or otherwise, to the original breeders of new medicine and foods. This biopiracy of food and medicinal plants is made legal by the patenting of living organisms, through international trade agreements.

Because African farmers will have to buy the new seeds, and the pesticides and fertilisers they require for increased yields, this green revolution initiative becomes a privatisation offensive against small-scale farmers who still retain control over their seeds. Of the seeds used for food crops in Africa, 80 percent is seed saved by the farmer herself or locally exchanged with family and neighbours. Farmers do not have to buy seed every season, with cash they do not have, for they possess a greater wealth in their indigenous seeds, freely shared and developed over centuries. The very best food seed breeders in Africa, the “keepers of seed,” are women who often farm less than one hectare of land. Across Africa, women are also the food producers, tending “gardens” full of diverse crops for local consumption, while the men concentrate on cash crop production. Even when the cash crop fails, food will most likely be available for the family, for those plots are intensively farmed and carefully watered.

The proposed green revolution would shift the food base away from this treasure of seed. Instead, African farmers would have to purchase patented seeds each season, thus putting cash into the hands of the corporations providing the seed, much as already has happened with plants used in medicinal compounds. Loss of control over seed reduces the control women farmers have over production, with risks to food security and nutrition. For AGRA, the seeds will not only be patented, but new varieties will undoubtedly be genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The perils of GMOs to environmental sustainability are well documented. Most African governments have ratified the biosafety protocol which allows them to deter research and production of GM food crops until sufficient data is available about its impact on human health and the environment, but AGRA is lobbying for governments to “fast track” approval for new varieties to be planted.

Research on African food crops certainly needs financing. The US National Research Council concluded in 19996 that a major African food crop, sorghum “is a relatively undeveloped crop with a truly remarkable array of grain types, plant types, and adaptability….most of its genetic wealth is so far untapped and even unsorted. Indeed, sorghum probably has more undeveloped genetic potential than any other major food crop in the world.”

As nutritious as maize is for carbohydrates, vitamin B6, and food energy, sorghum is even more nutritious in a range of essential nutrients for health. One of the most versatile foods in the world, sorghum can be boiled like rice, cracked like oats for porridge, baked like wheat into flatbreads, popped like popcorn for snacks, or brewed for nutritious beer. Because sorghum can tolerate dry areas and poor soil better than maize, it can provide nutritious food security in semi-arid regions and therefore, should become even more important under conditions of global warming.

Engaging African scientists to discover the potential genetic wealth of sorghum would assist African food security. In a first glimpse of foundation expenditures, however, we see funds directed to the Wambugu Consortium (founded by Pioneer Hi-Breed, part of DuPont) for experiments in genetically modified sorghum. By adding a gene, rather than mining the genetic wealth already there, the consortium can patent and sell the “new” sorghum at a premium price for DuPont.

Private expenditure on research and marketing of a few crops directs attention to crops that are profitable. Similar to health care, International Monetary Fund requirements for structural adjustment programs, supported by all donor governments, the World Bank, and the African Development Bank, have been removing African government expenditures on agricultural research and extension. Governments had to spend less on agriculture in order to repay their debts. Now, more two decades later, the private foundations step in to “save” food-deficit Africa.

High-tech answers to Africa’s food crises are no answers at all if they undermine human nutrition, privatise both indigenous knowledge and bioresources through patenting of plants, and transform the genetic wealth of the continent into cash profits for a few corporations. Public policy choices around the AGRA proposals have not yet been made within Africa. There is thus still an opportunity to call for assessment and debate on the health and nutrition impacts of these proposals, including by civil society working in health, and by parliaments, and by UN agencies. We need to openly challenge its goals, motives and methodologies before Africa’s political leaders accept them, and before universities and research centres divert their agendas away from other applied research that may offer a more sustainable and nutritious future for African food production. The future of African health depends on it.

*Professor Carol B.Thompson teaches Political Economy at Northern Arizona University. This article first appeared at

**Please send comments to [email protected] or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

*** For references used in this editorial and a more detailed analysis of how Africa’s food biodiversity provides alternatives to chemical industrial agriculture, follow this link:

http://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/361/47259weat.jpgRegassa Feyissa in this interview talks about the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), the fallacy of food aid, knowledge systems in relation to traditional versus scientific and the need to create alternatives to AGRA

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: Dr. Regassa Feyissa is the co-founder and Director of the Ethio-Organic Seed Action (EOSA) and expert delegate to various international negotiations (International Undertaking, Global Plan of Action and the Convention on Biological Diversity). EOSA is leading a program on Agro-bio diversity in Ethiopia - with the goal of restoring and preserving genetic diversity.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: Lets jump straight into the Rockefeller-Bill Gates initiative – the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA). What impact will it have on the continent?

REGASSA FEYISSA: First of all, Africa is a very rich continent in terms of ecological systems, farming systems, and production systems. Culture and preferences also vary across the continent. It is not a continent to which you can apply a standardized application as has been done in Asia and even Europe.

I was surprised to read that AGRA has over 200 crop varieties ready to be used in Africa. But what varieties of crops are they going to bring to Africa? As Mexico provided maize to the world, Africa provided sorghum. Sorghum resisted destruction from the first green revolution because it is such an energetic crop. It adapts itself anywhere from 400 meters to 6,000 meters. The first green revolution and its standardized systems could not match sorghum. Sorghum is distributed across various ecological requirements. We have been talking for the last 50 or so years about rice, maize and to some extent wheat. Africa has had maize for 500 years introduced from Mexico. We have rice for more than 1,000 years, which is still more stable.

We have different root crops, and different cereals which are forgotten because of the colonial system of forcing its own wills and wishes – thereby destroying and pushing out African resources. But still some of the crops resisted and Africans are still living on them.

So what crops will AGRA bring in is what interests me and I am surprised about the 200 varieties. Why were African farmers not consulted? One has to consult the stakeholders who will be affected.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: Proponents of the Green revolution (in the 1960’s) always talk about successes in Latin America and Asia – Have they been as successful as they say? Are the farmer suicides in India an anomaly in an otherwise good system?

REGASSA FEYISSA: At the early stages production doubled and tripled. But that production level was merely for demonstration and could not to be reproduced over time. Up and till now farmers in India are still committing suicide. We have seen the South East Asia and Asian soils salinized, and farmers left without any options.

We can see the end-results of the first the green revolution in Latin America, Asia and even to some extent Africa where the colonial systems until recently dominated.

So this is the package that AGRA is promoting – and I am surprised that after all these experiences and information we have at the global level, that one can still come up with such crazy ideas. Is Africa short of food? Africa has plenty food. Why is there no concern for facilitating the flow of food in Africa?

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: In one your presentations you spoke about how during the 1980’s famine the Southern part of Ethiopia had lots of food while the North starved – yet food and aid were seen as the answer as opposed to finding ways of distributing food that was already in the country.

REGASSA FEYISSA: When the famine in Ethiopia happened, in the Southern and Southern West parts of Ethiopia, food was being dumped. There were no mechanisms and infrastructure to bring food from the South to the North.

This is similar in African countries- there is no effort, there is no investment to try and improve Africa’s resource base to such an extent that it is of use to the people. This is unless it is market and profit, driven.

There is so much emphasis on tea, on coffee and cocoa –whereas major food-crops such as root-crops, and cereals of different types were not even considered by the architects of the first green revolution.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: What role does food aid play in Western imagination? On the one hand you have philanthropists coming to aid Africa – but in practice you have harmful practices such as giving western farmers subsidies, which depress the world market for the African farmer.

REGASSA FEYISSA: I think as an Ethiopian, we have a lot of experience in food aid. There were a lot of people who came to help – and we still owe them gratitude.

But with that said some of the volunteers who came to help had never seen wheat, barley or sorghum growing and they made a mess of things. For example, we ended up planting winter wheat. Most of the aid workers were [supposedly] coming as experts, but I know one bus driver who was the head of a medical center.

The aid was to stop people from dying. The country’s policy back then was to hide food in the Southern parts while millions died in the North…

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: Was this punitive?

REGASSA FEYISSA: I really cannot say that it was for punishing because when the moment this phenomenon occurred, the politicians claimed that all was under control – at the expense of millions. But after the famine, aid became a tradition to such an extent that it destroyed the psychology of the people in the rural areas. As the population increased, this indiscriminate flow of aid really destroyed the psychology of society.

What aid leaves behind, is it not so much lesser than what Africa gives to the world?

Structural Adjustments Programs are still affecting African governments. We were not allowed to have market boards. Market boards only exist in powerful countries. African countries were asked not subsidize agriculture, public services and so on.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: Can we talk about some African centered solutions? Using African traditions, and African grains such as sorghum etc.

REGASSA FEYISSA: I am very concerned about the term traditional…

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: Because it juxtaposes tradition and science?

REGASSA FEYISSA: What is scientific and what is not scientific? The scientist observes knowledge that has already been created. There are those who created that knowledge - but the scientist who observes claims his understanding is scientific, and that the other traditional. Tradition is used to mean backwards. This is absolutely wrong.

There is nothing static in nature – everything is passing through a process. There is no static knowledge. Knowledge is the interaction of humans and their environment that is changing. This is how knowledge expands and develops. The views and perceptions of the so-called scientific are based on the existing practical and pragmatic knowledge.

But no one can deny that there is a need, as long as time and opportunities allow for us to enhance knowledge and the practices referenced to as traditional. What makes so-called traditional knowledge different is that it is wide-based, whereas scientific knowledge is narrow. It is a child of practical knowledge. It is denying its parents – that is the danger – it remains hanging in the air.

And this is the disaster that the first green revolution was built upon. The first green revolution killed itself, it committed suicide –we shall see about the second one - by denying its parents.

Both traditional and modern knowledge are integrated, and support one another. Knowledge is not static. Anything that is static is dead.

Particularly for Africans, we have to enlarge our world outlook, practices and knowledge, but not by neglecting the modern one because time is subsistence itself. You have to qualify information and practices so that they match your livelihood and environment into the future.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: Are there Pan-African solutions?

REGASSA FEYISSA: The perception that AGRA is coming to swallow you is a kind of… for me… I have never surrendered this way. Many surrendered, just gave up, in the first green revolution. Right now from the very beginning many are surrendering in the name of farmers; but we cannot do this on their behalf.

We have to think about alternatives. It is not about polarizing, it is about the capacity to come up with better alternatives to AGRA that counts – to show and teach those who for good or bad are coming up with these things. There are better ways.

In Africa, there is a lot of experience, expertise, and information but they are not compiled or documented. This is I think is why it is very easy for us to be divided, or have conflicts created amongst us. We have to organize ourselves and open up our doors to those who are here to genuinely help.

There is the perception that Africa should switch to agra-ecology. This is the wrong approach. Africa is already practicing agra-ecology. This is why we are trying to stop AGRA. It is disrupting our agra-ecological approaches and practices. It is actually us who are recommending agra-ecological approaches to North America and Europe.

*Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

http://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/361/47258piracy.jpgIn this wide ranging Pambazuka News interview, Mariam Mayet, the director of the African Center Biosafety speaks about biopiracy, which she calls "the last frontier", the Alliance for a Green Revolution and its impact on Africa, and food and agriculture as social justice justice.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: I am here with Mariam Mayet, the director of the African Center for Biosafety (www.biosafetyafrica.net). Can you tell us about your organization?

MARIAM MAYET: We are based in Jo’burg and we have four main programs. We campaign against genetic engineering in food and agriculture. We campaign against bio-piracy particularly the theft of indigenous knowledge in the context of medicinal plants and new areas around marine bio prospecting.

We also work on the green revolution in Africa – and Agro-fuels. Basically we do a lot of cutting edge research, exposes of what multi-national companies are doing in Africa, and on the bio-tech industry. We look at the seed industry and where the GM-Agro fuels push is coming from. We work with a large network of other groups and communities.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: Can you talk a little more about bio-piracy – and patenting systems?

MARIAM MAYET: Pharmaceutical and cosmetic companies want to bring in new products to the market. They have to find the active ingredient to be able to produce a particular medicine (sometimes they stumble into things accidentally). But the way to get to the plant and the use of the plant is through local people. And when they come into our countries and they appropriate our knowledge and resources, without people’s consent, we call it theft or bio-piracy.

The last frontier of resources base is really our people’s knowledge in regards to medicinal plants and agriculture. And these are highly sought after. When a company finds a particular plant, and the useful properties in the plant they make a product from it, and then register a patent in regards to the use of that plant. And where they duplicate existing uses, we are able to challenge those patents.

For example, we found a company in Germany trying to patent two endemic species in South Africa and Lesotho but they are duplicating local uses. We were able to challenge this. So even in a European patenting system which is very neo-liberal and capitalist, it does not allow to register a patent over the use of something, if a community anywhere in the world has the same use. So we use the small margins to challenge bio-piracy. This was one case, but there are there are thousands of cases like this in Africa.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: Can you give Pambazuka readers other examples of bio-piracy?

MARIAM MAYET: Yes. Last year we published a booklet called “Out of Africa: Mysteries of Benefit Sharing.” We published 36 cases of dubious acquisitions in Africa, such as theft of the people’s knowledge to produce skin whitening cosmetic by the cosmetic industry.

The hoodia gordonii, a hunger suppressing plant gives us the quintessential case of bio-piracy. This is where the knowledge of the San to stave off hunger when trekking through the Kalahari was appropriated by Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) in South Africa and passed onto Phytopharm. Phytopharm registered a patent claiming that there were no indigenous people in South Africa, that the San had died off. Stealing knowledge is extremely rife in Africa.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: Let’s change gears a little and turn our attention to philanthropy, which Cecil Rhodes once called, philanthropy plus five-percent - which is to say that philanthropy paves way for profit making, or what others call the philanthropy-industrial complex. Can you talk a little about the role of Western philanthropy in Africa?

MARIAM MAYET: Philanthropy in Africa has some history especially in relation to the Rockefeller family. The Rockefeller foundation has a much longer history than the Gates Foundation for example. Gordon Conway who became one of the presidents of the Rockefeller Foundation published a book called the New Green Revolution in 1999. The Green Revolution push we are seeing in Africa is really his brainchild. Their philanthropy has come in the context of pushing a very distinct corporate agenda – to open markets for US corporations. For example in Kenya the Rockefeller Foundation has been involved in sponsoring Florence Wambugu’s sweet potato project because they want to open Africa up to GMOs. So if you give the impression that a genetically modified sweet potato can work because it is the poor person’s crop, there will be more willingness to accept GMO’s. So it is not philanthropy. It’s a form of investment, a corporatized agenda for resource extraction from Africa.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: There was an expose in the LA Times [http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gatesx07jan07,0,68…[ on the Bill Gates Foundation where it was found that the foundation invests money in companies and corporations that cause the very same problems it is trying to solve, companies such as Shell. So the philanthropy arm is trying to save the environment, while the investment arm is making profit from its destruction…

MARIAM MAYET: Exactly, the Rockefellers made their money from Exon, which later became Chevron – so they have old oil money - this wrecked a whole lot of havoc environmentally and in terms of human rights.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: And also the idea of telescopic philanthropy, a telescopic philanthropy that sees far but not what is under its feet – for example there are a lot problems in the United States amongst minority communities…

MARIAM MAYET: Yes, why didn’t they give money to Hurricane Katrina victims? Why do they feel they have to come and rescue Africa? We say that the Green Revolution is a white man’s dream for a black continent. And this dream… this savior mentality is very missionary, very colonial, and imperialistic – and yes they should leave us alone. If they take away all the developmental aid, if they take all the food aid, and the military aid – we would be like Cuba. We would struggle for a while but eventually we would find our way. We would build our own local economies and vibrancy because all these development aid is also an industry unto itself, and it feeds off itself.

Who are the world’s biggest agri-business players? Take Cargil, which owns shares in seed companies, buys the harvest from farmers and transports it all over the world – they are more powerful than some governments because they are in charge of the international prices of grains and trade in grains. You have to really understand this whole capitalist agri-business system in order to understand the logic of the green revolution.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: AGRA, according to its website, is and “African-led partnership working across the African continent to help millions of small-scale farmers and their families lift themselves out of poverty and hunger. AGRA programs develop practical solutions to significantly boost farm productivity and incomes for the poor while safeguarding the environment. AGRA advocates for policies that support its work across all key aspects of the African agricultural “value chain”—from seeds, soil health, and water to markets and agricultural education. AGRA is chaired by Kofi A. Annan, the former Secretary-General of the United Nations”. They say that they are African led and now they have Kofi Annan who is serving as the chairman of AGRA – your response?

MARIAM MAYET: I think they are African followed because the vision was put in place by Gordon Conway from the Rockefeller Foundation. The Rockefeller Foundation brought in the Bill-Melinda Gates foundation, then started to recruit willing and compliant Africans – the coup de grace was Kofi Annan.

If it was African led we would not be asking for consultation and transparency. It would be coming from our farmers, coming from the ground-up. What is African led, are the local struggles, where people are clearly saying this is what we want. Go to speak to the people affected and they will tell you what they want – that would be African led.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: Can you talk a little bit about the packaging of AGRA? You have Kofi Annan, who has UN credentials, gentle spoken yet charismatic and Bill Gates who appears harmless. There is a lot of star power and money…

MARIAM MAYET: The things is the Green Revolution is a very a violent package because it puts powerful toxic chemicals into Africa. It displaces and destroys local knowledge and seeds. It favors those farmers who will be able to access the system, the more powerful farmers. This will divide the African peasantry.

AGRA also creates a lot of dependency and debt. It is violent. But the geeky sexy richest man who brought us wonderful technology, and gentle Kofi Annan – this is the savior face, our last hope. It is a very strategic move to push a very agri-business, corporatized market driven package – but it will fail in Africa because they do not understand Africa.

We are a very diverse people, we need local solutions that are multi-dimensional and multi-faceted – built on local knowledge and local seeds. You need to speak to people about how they adapt to harsh climates. To have a one-size fit all solution for Africa will be disastrous for us. Even in one country we have different eco-systems, different farming communities, different cultures, different eating habits.

We do not need to grow more foods for exports. We need to build on food sovereignty principles and give people equitable access to land, allocate the water fairly, support traditional farming methods, and create local vibrant economies, before we start exporting coffee, cocoa, and grow maize for export.

We are not saying that everyone must live on the land, or farm – we are talking about a local economy that is also integrated into the national economies. You cannot have two economies. We are talking about a vibrant whole.

I have to say that we are also unhappy with the agricultural systems in Africa and this is why we are saying – that we have to stop talking about food security because this perpetuates the existing paradigms. We have to tell our governments - what the hell are you doing? You have messed up badly, and left a vacuum for the philanthropist to walk in - and take over our countries, in a way.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: So there are ways in which the African governments have been absent in the debate completely…

MARIAM MAYET: None of our governments are going to say no to resources because they are corrupt, and despotic – we have had very few democracies but have huge class differences.

In terms of Agri-ecology we can do a lot of work with peasant movements but we have to always bear in mind that our struggle is a social justice struggle – and we need to hold our governments accountable.

We have to keep demanding from our governments the same things - We want justice in rural areas, equality for women, access to lands, support of traditional farming, we want you to protect our seeds, we do not want GMO’s, we want you to listen to farmers, we want you to build agricultural schools for them, and put money in research and development. I mean look at Nigeria. Once the oil industry took off, it mortgaged its oil to international oil companies, but it stopped developing its own agriculture.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: What is at stake? Food systems?

MARIAM MAYAT: Food systems, social systems, our culture - the dynamics in the rural areas will change, there will be more debt, more dependency, and there will be a small commercial class of farmers.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: Can we talk a little bit more about food as social justice? What has the ANC government been doing in this regard?

MARIAM MAYAT: The ANC started off by giving up its many demands articulated in the Freedom charter and through the liberation struggle for nationalization of our mineral and energy companies. They made a deal with the industries, big business and the old government that we will not take the whole cake and nationalize it. What we will do is ask for a small slice of it, and we will call it Black Economic Empowerment (BEE). So it has been pre-occupied with BEE.

Yes we have a lot of political freedoms, we have a democracy - but it has a very neo-liberal agenda and very pro-industry orientation to all its policies. So for example, it is now allowing huge smelters to draw excessive amounts of electricity thereby increasing our carbon-emissions. We are building more coal-fired industries at the cost of 80 billion rands, but we are also going into nuclear technology. It is as if we are taking a big step back.

And along they way they failed to redistribute land back to the landless people, they failed miserably in terms of service delivery to the poor and that has seen a lot of violent protests. And it has failed dismally on its AIDS and HIV policy.

There is a lot of struggle fatigue, it is very hard to get the people mobilized beyond AIDS/HIV and service delivery but I think the time will come when we shall see a resurgence of social movements in Africa.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: Would it be fair to say that we need to redefine what democracy means to us and inject a component of social justice?

MARIAM MAYET: As I said, we are never going to achieve social justice within a neo-liberal paradigm because it is always going to be favoring certain classes. So we really need to think beyond political rights, we have to think about our social economic rights. We can only be free once we achieve social justice.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: One last question: Your thoughts on the 2010 South Africa world cup?

MARIAM MAYET: The world cup is going to be a drain of our resources – and we cannot justify the enormous carbon footprint we shall leave behind - where all these people from all over the world take flights to come to watch a soccer match – we will need 2 billion litters of water for all these visitors – we shouldn’t be hosting such an event. We have other priorities.

It is not that I do not care for soccer, I do – but really Africa should not be hosting mega-events like this, for only two sectors will gain – airlines and people who already have a lot of money. The money that is coming in will not filter down to the people. How is the world cup going to benefit the poor people? I do wish African countries all the best in the world cup but we also need to take care of our people and our resources.

**Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

http://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/359/47204maga.jpgThe Congress of South African Trade Unions and the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions held a meeting this morning, Tuesday 8 April 2008, to receive a report from the ZCTU on the current political crisis in Zimbabwe.

The ZCTU salutes the people of Zimbabwe, especially in the rural areas, for overcoming all the obstacles to prevent them exercising their vote. These included the chaotic state of the voters' roll, restrictions on the media, the cancellation of some political meetings, the denial of access to opposition parties into certain rural areas, village headmen calling people to the polling stations brandishing the voters' roll in order to intimidate them, statements by Generals that they would not salute any opposition party leader, and by President Mugabe that he would not accept defeat. The arrest of the South African pilot had nothing to do with the trumped up charges but was a blatant attempt to stop the MDC from campaigning in the rural areas.

All these factors combined to make many people not to participate in the elections - the turnout was low. It was not a free and fair election, yet despite that the people defied all the odds and have spoken. The urban areas voted overwhelmingly for opposition parties and the rural votes swung dramatically against the ZANU-PF.

The ZCTU had hoped that all the results would have been announced by now. The Zimbabwe Electoral Commission is not obliged to announce the council, parliamentary and senate elections as they are counted at polling stations, with results posted at each of the polling stations and announced at constituency command centres. The ZEC is however compelled by law to announce the Presidential results.

It appears that when ZANU (PF) saw the results of the presidential vote, they leaned on the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) to only release the parliamentary and senate results first, in order to give them time to find a way to prove that Morgan Tsvangirai received less that 50%, so that a run-off would be necessary. The independent NGO, the Zimbabwe Electoral Support Network has calculated that his vote was between 47% and 49%, with Robert Mugabe receiving 41%-43%. The MDC through the party agents that were observing at all polling stations put the poll at 50.3%.

The ZANU (PF) claim that no candidate has a majority and that they have been cheated of 4900 votes, through ZEC officials 'under-counting' their vote, though they have not revealed how they know that.

It should be noted that all political parties including the ZANU (PF) and the MDC had party agents in all polling stations. These party agents signed for the results before these were posted in the polling stations. In addition to this ZCTU and other NGOs had monitors who witnessed the counting and the signing in most polling stations.

In the face of the above fact it is very clear that the arrest of ZEC officials is an attempt to force some ZEC officials to change tune. The suspicion is that they will be tortured into "confessing" that they, and other agents, under-counted President Mugabe's votes as claimed by the ZANU (PF) Politburo, which has issued a statement that some of its party agents were bribed by the MDC. This is the reason behind the arrest of the ZEC officials. Yet no party agent and police officers who all signed the V11 and V23 forms which contained the results posted outside the stations were arrested.

The ZANU-PF is also challenging the results in 16 parliamentary wards, just enough, if they succeed, to reverse the results in their favour and give them a majority of seats. It is speculated that the reason why ZANU PF is so desperate to undermine the will of the majority is that Mugabe intended to resign in six months and make way for Emmerson Mnangagwa, which will be impossible if the ZANU-PF does not have a parliamentary majority.

ZANU - PF clearly knows it lost the vote, yet it is still illegal for anyone to say this in public. Even if Mugabe came second, for an incumbent president, that amounts to a defeat. The ZCTU and many other civil society formations are coming under intense pressure from their constituencies to initiate protest action in the face of the refusal of ZEC to announce the Presidential elections results.

The leadership is aware that such protest may be what President Mugabe is praying for, in that it would give him the excuse to declare a state of emergency and rule by decree. With the history of violence including, the massacre of 20 000 people in Matebeland between 1983 and 1987, this fear is not far fetched.

For that reason the ZCTU is urging all its members to remain calm, as the situation is a cliff-hanger and the popular mood is explosive. The ZCTU is however extremely concerned that in the context of divisions in the uniformed forces and even amongst the war veterans a possibility looms that people may lose patience. No one predicted the Rwanda and Kenya scenarios until they happened.

The ZCTU and COSATU demand that the results be announced. If there is a clear winner that winner must form a government. If there is no winner the election must be rerun, with an increased number of international and local observers.

The federations are preparing themselves for three scenarios. First is that a winner is declared and he forms a new government and begin a process of national unity. The second scenario is that there will be a run-off election. The third, more negative one, is that President Mugabe will rule by decree and in effect stage a coup.

The ZCTU, speaking for all progressive Zimbabweans who want a change to their plight, thanks COSATU and South African civil society for their constant support for the struggle for democracy and human rights in Zimbabwe.

*Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

http://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/359/47203msg.jpgPaul T Zeleza looks at the long road that might yet see Mugabe's downfall and calls for a democracy that ultimately serves the Zimbabwean people through political and economic enfranchisement

As of now, results for the presidential elections in Zimbabwe have not yet been declared, five days after the elections were held last Saturday, March 29. In the meantime, the results of the parliamentary elections, which had been announced at snail's pace by the Electoral Commission over the past few days are now complete. They show that President Mugabe's ruling party, ZANU-PF, has lost its parliamentary majority. The opposition party, MDC, has won 99 to ZANU-PF's 97 out of 210 parliamentary seats. Eleven other seats were won by an MDC splinter group, and one by an independent candidate. Thus the opposition has won 110; three seats remain to be contested in by-elections because they were postponed following the death of opposition candidates. The ruling party's loss of its parliamentary majority represents a shockwave in Zimbabwe's post-independence political history.

But the real earthquake would be President Mugabe's downfall. Thus, as crucial as the parliamentary elections are, it is the results of the presidential elections that everyone is waiting for with mounting anxiety. The Electoral Commission is appealing for patience and blames logistical problems in releasing the results. But all the evidence including the very delay in the announcement of the results indicates that the irascible octogenarian dictator, President Mugabe, is, at the very least, trailing the veteran opposition leader, Mr. Morgan Tsvangirai. In previous presidential elections (which were held separately from parliamentary elections) the predictable (the opposition would say predictably rigged) outcome was announced with a lot more alacrity and fanfare. Even more likely is the probability that President Mugabe has lost and his regime is trying to rig the elections. Outright rigging of the results will be difficult, but not impossible, because of a pre-election agreement among the parties that results should be posted outside each polling station: the opposition insisted on this to avoid blatant rigging that it suspected robbed it of victory in previous elections.

In the immediate ecstasy of the elections, the MDC claimed outright victory, that Mr. Tsvangirai had decisively beaten President Mugabe by 60% to 30%. Perusal and sampling of 435 of the 9,400 polling stations by the Zimbabwe Election Support Network, a coalition of civic groups, projected a more modest victory by the MDC leader. It indicated that Mr. Tsvangirai would receive between 47-51.8 percent to President Mugabe's 39.2-44.4 percent. In its latest announcement the MDC claims its leader has won 50.3 percent of the vote to President Mugabe's 43.8 percent. This is crucial figure: to avoid a runoff, the winner has to garner more than 50 percent of the popular vote. While conceding that the President failed to win 50 percent of the vote, for the first time in his twenty eight year reign, the government mouthpiece, The Herald, insists neither did Mr. Tsvangirai, thus making a runoff election later this month inevitable (according to the law, a runoff election has to be held in 21 days).

Zimbabwe and the wider southern African region, not to mention the rest of the continent and the so-called international community, are watching this unfolding political drama with intense interest and growing trepidation. In the absence of the presidential results, rumors are rife: about the shock and tensions within the ruling party with some of his lieutenants reportedly ready to ditch him, that there are negotiations between the opposition and the embattled president's advisors to ease him into resignation and retirement, and about the unpredictable machinations and loyalties of the security chiefs.

Expectations that the despised autocrat was too humiliated to stay are now giving way to fears that he will hang on and fight in the runoff election. Many political commentators believe that he will be trounced in a new election that is free and fair. That is the big question: will the mortally wounded tyrant be allowed by his security forces and political cronies who are running scared of losing their ill-gotten wealth built on the carcasses of deepening poverty of millions of workers and peasants, not to mention the immiseration of significant sections of the middle classes, to unleash the wrath of state power to terrorize the opposition into defeat?

Whatever happens next, it is not hard to explain the defeat of ZANU-PF and President Mugabe in the recent elections. A government that has impoverished its population as spectacularly as President Mugabe's inept dictatorship has done cannot maintain popular support. Zimbabwe's descent into the economic abyss has been staggering for a country not at war: inflation has apparently risen to a mindboggling rate of 164,900 percent, life expectancy has nearly been halved, and between a quarter and a third of the population has fled to neighboring countries and overseas. In this election Zimbabweans have shown that they have had enough of the Mugabe government's bankrupt stewardship of their well-being.

Predictable as it may seem from afar and in hindsight, what explains the opposition's victory is that support for President Mugabe's government finally collapsed in the rural areas, its political backbone since the liberation war from settler colonialism. It was in the enduring interests of repossessing land stolen by the European settlers under colonial rule and in the endearing name of the peasantry that the liberation war was fought and the violent land seizures embarked upon from the late 1990s after the British government reneged on the Lancaster House agreement and as the Mugabe government lost became increasingly unpopular thanks to its embrace of structural adjustment and abandonment of radical development policies including land reform. Yet, the peasantry benefited little from either, whose principal beneficiaries were functionaries of the political class. The urban working classes had long grown disenchanted with the tired socialist rhetoric of ZANU-PF which promised broad-based development but delivered unfettered neo-liberalism that benefited the elite that fragrantly flaunted its affluence as the country has sunken deeper into economic decline.

The rural peasantry did not simply catch up, as it were, with the urban working classes. Rural discontent has been growing. Indeed, the rural areas bore the brunt of economic decline and political terror as the regime sought to shore up its dwindling legitimacy and tattered revolutionary credentials by tightening its grip on the peasantry, its symbolic and substantive basis of power. The costs of the economic crisis, as manifested in food shortages and the politicization of food relief efforts, finally broke the proverbial patient backs of the peasantry.

Connecting the two, the peasantry and the working classes, the rural and the urban areas, and the country's other spatial and social divides, including the ethnicized divisions between the old Mashonaland and Matabeleland, which the Mugabe regime had manipulated to weaken the opposition and maintain its iron grip on power, was the draconian "Operation Murambatsvina", officially translated as "Operation Clean Up", but literally translated as "getting rid of the filth", through which the government sought to drain the cities including Harare, the capital, of political opposition. The operation was launched in 2005 and affected more than two million people. The bulk of the MDC's parliamentary seats from previous elections were located in the cities. This criminal evacuation program, which was widely condemned within Zimbabwe and internationally including by the United Nations, led to the destruction of the informal sector in the cities and the displacement of hundreds of thousands of people many of whom flocked to the increasingly destitute rural areas. This not only exacerbated rural poverty, but also helped dissolve some of the social and political boundaries, both real and imagined, between the rural and urban areas and dwellers, which raised national consciousness and reinforced opposition to the former liberation heroes turned into predators in power.

If we are indeed witnessing the death throes of the Mugabe dictatorship, the full credit for this goes to the long-suffering people of Zimbabwe, not the so-called international community, neither feeble regional organizations like SADC nor imperious western powers such as Britain or the United States who have little moral credibility in Africa's protracted struggles for democracy. It is also a testimony to the transformative power of the ballot box.

But as we have seen across Africa and elsewhere where dictatorship have fallen, the electoral process offers, at best, minimal conditions for democracy; full democracy, which is still a work in progress globally notwithstanding the conceit of the so-called mature democracies, must entail political and economic enfranchisement for all that goes beyond ritualized certifications of fractions of the political class every four or five years. And that requires eternal vigilance by civil society, continuous struggles against the self-serving political class. This is to suggest that sustaining and expanding democracy in Zimbabwe will be as hard as getting rid of the Mugabe dictatorship.

Given its social composition and the present regional and global conjunctures, the MDC will not, if and when it takes power, magically turn Zimbabwe around into a developmental democratic state and society: that will require building and sustaining cultures and communities of accountability.

* Paul T Zeleza is editor of The Zeleza Post. This article was first published at

** Please send comments to [email protected] or comment online at http://www.pambazuka.org/

http://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/359/47201muga.jpgStatement of the GZF on the situation in Zimbabwe, issued after the Global Teleconference by all the regions present

Zimbabwe Global Forum (GFZ) condemns the actions by the Government of Zimbabwe for the arbitrary handling of the electoral process as well as the results of the presidential elections held on March 29, 2008.

The Government of President Robert Mugabe, and his ruling ZANUPF party have frustrated, not only the conduct of the elections but the timely release of the election results.

What is even more troubling is that President Mugabe’s ZANUPF are demanding a recount of the presidential votes, while at the same time preventing the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission from releasing the presidential election results.

President Robert Mugabe and his subordinates have started arming the youth militia and war veterans to unleash retributive and coercive violence against opposition supporters, especially in rural areas. President Mugabe is embarking on a warpath to impose himself on Zimbabweans in the aftermath of his defeat in the elections. It is self evident that President Mugabe does not respect the democratic process of elections in accordance with the SADC Guidelines and the laws of Zimbabwe.

Well -confirmed results - even from the vote-counting officers of the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission - show that the Movement for Democratic Change led by Mr. Morgan Tsvangirai won both the presidential and parliamentary elections. These results, which were posted outside the counting centers in accordance with the mandate of ZEC, also clearly show that Morgan Tsvangirai won by more than 50 percent.

Constitutionally, President Mugabe is by law obligated and required to concede defeat and hand over power to the MDC, according to the procedures provided for by the Constitution.

President Mugabe and ZANUPF have a proven history of political violence against members of the opposition parties. This is how he has maintained his rule over the years.

President Mugabe will now use all the barbaric and brutal force at his command to go after the Zimbabweans who voted against him and his party.

Already, reports are emerging of an assault on innocent civilians, aimed at forcing them to vote for Mugabe at the next run-off election and hence:

1. We call upon the international community to bring pressure to bear on the Mugabe regime to respect the people’s verdict and accept defeat. We quote from President Mugabe himself before the elections when he said if ZANUPF loses the elections he will concede defeat.

2. We demand that the countries of SADC insist that President Mugabe should follow the electoral procedures as laid out in the SADC guidelines and the Constitution of Zimbabwe.

3. We call upon, the Secretary General of the United Nations to begin consultations leading to the convening of the Security Council on the crisis in Zimbabwe.

4. We call upon the African Union, in consultation with SADC, to send a strong African delegation to mediate the crisis in Zimbabwe. The delegation should stay in Zimbabwe for as long as is necessary to resolve the crisis.

5. We call upon the countries of Kenya, Ghana, Nigeria and Botswana which have expressed concern at the denial of human and civil rights in Zimbabwe to play a leading role in bringing pressure to bear on President Mugabe.

6. The Government of the Republic of South Africa has a unique geopolitical and historic influence on Zimbabwe. We call upon President Thabo Mbeki, whose country will be adversely affected by the ongoing crisis of governance and humanitarian crisis in Zimbabwe, to initiate a shuttle diplomacy between President Mugabe and President-elect Tsvangirai in order to resolve peacefully the country’s electoral conflict.

7. Should a rerun of the presidential election become the only option to resolve the crisis, we call upon the United Nations to supervise the election with the active participation of SADC, AU and civil society in the country and region.

8. If President Mugabe and ZANUPF refuse to accept reasonable conditions for resolving the crisis, we call upon the international community not to recognize the Mugabe regime, especially, if the regime is fraudulently and by force of arms imposed on the people of Zimbabwe.

9. We also call upon the international community to impose more effective targeted sanctions against the Mugabe regime if it refuses to comply with the democratic norms for elections and handing over power.

10. We call upon the industrialized countries of North American, the European Union, etc. to increase, expand and extend the scope of their humanitarian assistance programs to include Zimbabwean refugees, especially the traumatized victims of assault by the Mugabe regime.

11. We call upon the international community to continue to strengthen civic society in Zimbabwe, and to distribute aid through civic organizations rather than a disputed government to avert politicization and misappropriation of resources and ensure that aid reaches its intended beneficiaries.

12. We call upon the international community to stand ready to engage the new democratic Zimbabwean on the basis of the Zimbabwe Strategy paper.

**Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

The International Federation of Journalists today accused the authorities in Zimbabwe of intimidation of journalists and called on the authorities to allow media to report freely as tension mounts following the elections for President held last Saturday.

The IFJ says the arrest of journalists in Harare yesterday was an attempt to sabotage media coverage media of the current political crisis and a possible run-up election which may be needed.

"It is absurd to suggest, as the authorities have, that these arrests are part of an investigation over spying," said Aidan White, IFJ General Secretary. "Put simply, this is a sinister act of political bullying."

New York Times reporter Barry Bearak, 58, and Steven Bevan a 45-year-old freelance journalist from Britain were arrested and charged with “practising without accreditation,” according to reports. They were held at a guest house in the capital Harare that is popular with foreign journalists. Two others who were not identified were also arrested.

"At this critical moment in the history of modern Zimbabwe people have a right to know about different political opinions in the election," said White. "Journalists must be allowed to report freely and without intimidation.”

The authorities have banned most foreign media coverage of the elections last week but a number of news organisations have filed reports from correspondents who snuck into the country. In the moths before the election the government cracked down on local and national journalists, shutting down newspapers and allowing members of Mugabe’s political party to harass and attack journalists with impunity.

“It appears that people are voting for change and if that means a fresh start for media and freedom of the press, then it is long overdue,” said White.

*The IFJ represents over 600,000 journalists in 120 countries worldwide. For more information contact the IFJ at + 32 2 235 2207

**Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

In this article Mukelani Dimba shows how freedom of information legislation can be used by citizens to pursue their socio-economic rights. He argues that it creates the conditions in which government decisions about resource allocation can be effectively challenged.

The third wave of democratisation in the developing world has created opportunities for development and reconstruction in many nations brought to their knees by past regimes that were oppressive, secretive and undemocratic. This has focused not only on infrastructure and the economy but also on a rethink of the relationship between those in power and those who voted them into power. In this reconfiguration we should recall the words of the American constitutionalist, Alexander Hamilton, who once said that ‘If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary… A dependence on the people is no doubt the primary control on government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.’

These ‘auxiliary precautions’ referred to by Hamilton included not only the courts and other organs of state but also the constitutional legal framework established to support them. If men and women were angels, basic human freedoms, such as the right to vote and freedom of expression (which includes the right to seek, receive and impart information), would not need to be protected in national constitutions. Nor would there be any need for special constitutional provisions obliging governments to share the spoils of economic growth fairly among citizens by ensuring that even the most impoverished have access to the services needed to sustain life, protect dignity and enhance the prospects of future generations. Alas, men and women are not angels, and we therefore need these ‘auxiliary precautions’ to protect the democratic order for the material benefit of the poor. It is vital that national constitutions not only protect civil and political rights but also promote the realisation of social and economic rights.

By social and economic rights, I refer to what Professor Kader Asmal, the South African human rights scholar, activist and former government minister, once called ‘the red and green rights’, namely the rights to housing, health care, food, social security, social services, education, human dignity in conditions of detention, healthy environment, land and security of tenure.

The third wave of democracy has not, in most cases, led to the social and economic development of communities previously materially disadvantaged by discriminatory and undemocratic systems of government. I believe that this is largely because the focus has tended to be on the full constitutional protection of civil and political rights as the cornerstone of the democratic order, while neglecting or partially entrenching social and economic rights within the constitutional framework.

Some correctly argue that democracy is not a sufficient condition for development or for social and economic equality. Many scholars have argued ‘that democracy will remain a formality unless it also includes substantive social and economic equality’ (Jones and Stokke, 2005). Amartya Sen’s argument is that ‘democratic institutions are guarantors for public deliberation and effective responses to poverty and deprivation’ (Jones and Stoke, 2005). Sen (2000) goes on to argue that:

‘Freedoms are not only the primary ends of development, they are also among its primary means. Political freedoms (in the form of free speech and elections) help to promote economic security. Social opportunities (in the form of education and health facilities) facilitate economic participation. Economic facilities (in the form of opportunities for participation in trade and production) can help generate personal abundance as well as public resources for social facilities. Freedoms of different kinds can strengthen one another.’

Mumtaz Soysal, in his 1977 Nobel lecture, argued that:

‘When those deprived of their socio-economic rights cannot make their voices heard, they are even less likely to have their needs met. If a person is deprived of one right, his chance of securing the other rights is usually endangered. The right to education and the right to freedom of information and open debate on official policies are necessary to secure full public participation in the process of social and economic development. The freedom of the human mind and welfare of the human being are inextricably linked.’

In countries where citizens have been unjustly denied access to certain services and resources because of their race or other societal background, a constitution, as an ‘auxiliary precaution’, that protects socio-economic rights is vital to the process of redress, reconstruction and redistribution.

The protection of socio-economic rights by a country’s constitution and their progressive realisation partially justiciable by the courts is a departure from the norm, where the focus has tended to be on judicial protection of political and civil rights. Traditionally, freedom of information (FOI) has found its place among the body of these political and civil rights.

During the era when only a few Scandinavian countries and the USA had freedom of information legislation, these laws created an understanding of FOI as merely part of the right of freedom of expression, which in and of itself had come to be perceived as a right that affected only journalists and political activists. Earlier international legal instruments, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, also enveloped FOI within the broader right to freedom of expression. The newer Declaration on Principles of Freedom of Expression by the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights follows a similar route, the major difference being its extension of FOI to privately held information.

I firmly believe that it is when freedom of information is used as a form of leverage to protect or promote other socio-economic rights that it finds its real meaning in a developing-country context. The well-known and remarkable work of the MKSS in Rajasthan in India, emulated by other organisations in South Africa and elsewhere, shows how FOI can be used to the benefit of local communities and governments by helping social organisations expose corruption that compromises the proper implementation of development projects and social security schemes. This supports the idea that one of the purposes of the tools of democracy, such as FOI, is ‘to advance poor people’s access to socio-economic resources and services’ (Barbeton, Davis and Sarkin, 2000). This is consistent with the United Nations Development Programme in its assertion that:

‘Effective anti-poverty programmes require accurate information on problems hindering development to be in the public domain. Meaningful debates also need to take place on the policies designed to tackle the problems of poverty. Information can empower poor communities to battle the circumstances in which they find themselves and help balance the unequal power dynamic that exists between people marginalised through poverty and their governments.’

In India, for example, the government runs a massive food subsidy scheme as a social security measure to promote the right to food. Food rations are in most instances distributed through shopkeepers in the private sector, called ration-dealers. A person takes their ration card and collects food parcels from their local ration-dealer. The dealer then claims payment from the government for the food he has distributed to the community. However, some ration-dealers have been reportedly manipulating the process for their own ends by telling people that they have run out of food subsidy stock, offering to sell them food from their ‘ordinary trading stock’ instead. In the ration-dealers' records these transactions are recorded as distributions related to the food subsidy scheme and money is claimed from the government. The ration-dealers therefore get paid twice, by the customer and by the government.

This practice was exposed in a number of villages in Rajasthan when these communities, assisted by the MKSS, used the state’s freedom of information law to access the claims submitted by the ration-dealers to the government. Massive discrepancies were discovered between what the ration-dealers claimed and what they had actually distributed, which was captured on individual ration cards kept by each member of the community. By accessing government documents these citizens were able to reconcile what was claimed on paper with the reality on the ground. This illustrates vividly the multi-dimensionality of freedom of information in the developing world, where it can be used as tool for accountability, to protect socio-economic rights, fight corruption and improve government efficiency.

In Thailand, children’s right to education and fair and equal treatment was protected when one parent used the country’s freedom of information law to challenge a public school’s decision denying their child’s enrolment in one of the country’s best public schools. In seeking access to the results of enrolment tests, the parent exposed the discrimination that had hitherto been part of the selection process, and which favoured children from rich and prominent families. This action prompted a countrywide overhaul of the system of selection and enrolment in public schools.

However, in countries where freedom of information legislation has not yet been passed, citizens cannot claim the protection it might provide. In an area near the Tanzanian capital of Dodoma, schools were built with donor support on condition that the donor and the government would provide match funding for the money paid by parents towards their running costs; the funds would be controlled by local authorities and school principals. However, inefficiency and some reported cases of corruption have left some of these schools in a state of disrepair. There is simply no accountability for the use of these funds. Local people have no recourse open to them, short of social mobilisation, which in itself require access to information. But Tanzania does not yet have a freedom of information law.

In neighbouring Kenya, citizens have complained about the mismanagement of constituency development funds (CDF), which are funds controlled by members of parliament to fight poverty at regional levels. CDFs are also used to run educational and bursary schemes and constitute about 7.5 per cent of the government’s revenue. However, in Kenya the CDFs are popularly called ‘corruption devolvement funds’. Kenyans have very little recourse to ensure that they receive the services to which they are entitled because Kenya does not yet have a freedom of information law.

Slightly more fortunate are a group of women in KwaZulu-Natal, one of South Africa’s poorest provinces. Villagers in the hamlet of Emkhandlwini noticed that those in neighbouring villages were receiving water from municipal tankers while they were not. Their water source was a dirty stream that they shared with their livestock. Luckily, some villagers were aware of their basic civil rights because they had had some training, but they did not know how to seek solutions to the water problem without relying on an unresponsive local government political representative who had until then failed to deal with the issue.

In 2004, and with the assistance of the Open Democracy Advice Centre, the villagers used South Africa’s freedom of information law, the Promotion of Access to Information Act, to ask for the minutes of the council meetings at which the municipality had decided on programmes of water provision. They also asked for the municipality’s integrated development plan and budget. It took a frustrating six months before the information was released, but it showed that while there were plans to provide water, no-one had thought of sharing these with the community. With these plans in hand the women started asking difficult questions of the authorities regarding the delivery of water. The media also covered the case, which may have created sufficient pressure to prompt the municipality to act. Almost a year after the initial FOI request, fixed water tanks, replenished a couple of times a week, were installed in the village and mobile water tankers began delivering water, while the municipality worked on a more permanent solution of laying down pipes.

This case demonstrates how socio-economic rights can be realised through the use of freedom of information and public pressure rather than through litigation. Public pressure to influence resource allocation can only be effectively applied if there is sufficient transparency in the process of resource allocation. Freedom of Information creates the conditions in which decisions about the allocation of resources can be challenged.

I strongly believe that in countries plagued by socio-economic imbalances inherited from undemocratic systems of government, it is crucial that the products of democratic transition, such as freedom of information legislation, must be used to address these imbalances. In the field of socio-economic rights, as the cases above show, FOI creates a basis for contestation and justification of government decisions on resource allocation. It creates a basis for a fair and reasonable manner of decision-making.

I wish to conclude this article by quoting South Africa’s leading legal academic on administrative law, the late Professor Etienne Mureinik, who once wrote:

‘If the new Constitution is a bridge away from a culture of authority, it is clear what it must be a bridge to. It must lead to a culture of justification – a culture in which every exercise of power is expected and justified, in which the leadership given by government rests on the cogency of the case offered in defence of its decisions, not the fear inspired by the force at its command. The new order must be a community built on persuasion, not coercion.’

*Mr Dimba is the Deputy Chief Executive Officer of the Open Democracy Advice Center (ODAC), Cape Town. This essay was presented on behalf of the Open Democracy Advice Centre (ODAC) on the occasion of the international conference on Right to Public Information, organized by the Carter Centre, 26–29 February 2008, Atlanta, Georgia.

* Please send comments to or comment online at http://www.pambazuka.org/

http://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/359/47178race.jpgBlessing-Miles Tendi argues that it is too early to rule out a Mugabe led Zimbabwe - he will find ways to remain in power.

I have been following Zimbabwe's 2008 elections closely. My emotions have mutated with alacrity, checking news sites more often than I should, and receiving calls and messages from family and political contacts in Zimbabwe. Since last week, I have gone from 'Robert Mugabe and ZANU PF will win' to 'it will be a landslide victory for the opposition' to 'Mugabe has already fled the country fearing retribution' to 'the army has ordered the electoral commission to declare Mugabe the winner' and now, my present mood and thinking is that a lot of people are going to be disappointed by the eventual outcome of the presidential poll because we are headed for a do or die run-off between Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai.

The two things that stand out about Mugabe's political pattern is his consistency, and that he is too wily and resolute in power to be swept away in a pseudo democratic election. Zimbabwe is better off without him at the helm but we must temper our emotions and stop our imagination from running wild. Mugabe has been in difficult situations before and wriggled out of them amazingly. 'Jesus rose from the dead once but I have come back from the dead several times', he once boasted. The probability is high that Mugabe can come back from the dead once again. I would not bet against it. This is my position now, after what has been a rollercoster week of miraculous flip-flopping on my part.

Sovereignty is a vehicle towards the good life for the ZANU PF political elite. The font of sovereignty is the powerful executive presidency through which ZANU PF has privatised the institution of the state as a means to authoritarian rule and personal aggrandisement: 'the desire to retain sovereignty and not to surrender it or even share it is a powerful motive perpetuating the ex-colonial status quo in Sub Saharan Africa. Sovereignty gives a relatively small number of people control of state positions which confer enormous palpable advantages and privileges. Ruling elites literally live off sovereignty and most live very well indeed - as long as they live. They fight to keep it and others fight to take it away from them'.

When Mugabe and ZANU PF play up sovereignty it is in order to protect their hold on power and its benefits. Their uses of sovereignty are less about protecting the country and its inhabitants' sovereignty but more about protecting the 'enormous palpable advantages and privileges' sovereignty affords them. In Zimbabwe it is not the governed who are sovereign – it is ZANU PF that is sovereign. ZANU PF elites live off sovereignty. Thus, sovereignty is one of the themes commanding broad consensus in ZANU PF and the party will strive – at all costs - to keep its hold on sovereignty by retaining the presidency in the looming run off.

A run off between Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai may suit Mugabe better than facing Simba Makoni in a runoff because if there is anything many in ZANU PF and Zimbabwe's top security officials are united on, it is that Tsvangirai must not rule. Those comprising the status quo not only stand to lose their sovereignty but also fear prosecution for crimes committed in office if Tsvangirai prevails.

ZANU PF was divided in this election but expect it to put its differences aside and to rally behind Mugabe forcefully in a run off with Tsvangirai. Mugabe risked damaging defections if he had faced Makoni in a run off. A Mugabe-Makoni run off would have presented Makoni's secret and powerful backers in ZANU PF, such as Solomon Mujuru, with the opportune moment to abandon Mugabe in favour of Makoni. Mugabe will also find it easier to marshal ZANU PF's rank and file to campaign for him against Tsvangirai as opposed to Makoni who has many sympathisers in the ruling party. Indeed some will not need to be marshaled at all for retaining the presidency means guaranteeing their life of privilege.

ZANU PF will leave no stone unturned in a Mugabe-Tsvangirai face off. ZANU PF was complacent in the rural areas and some of its rural party structures were not as formidable as they normally are. It underestimated the extent to which Tsvangirai would make significant in roads into its rural strongholds. The free political space Tsvangirai enjoyed in the rural areas during this campaign will be gone in the run off. A run off in 3 weeks, or 90 days as has been suggested, also allows ZANU PF some time to tinker its rigging machinery. The war veterans have started making threats. There is a developing discourse proclaiming the return of white farmers and how the land revolution can only be defended by re-electing Mugabe. The military looks set to be more involved than ever before in guaranteeing Mugabe's re-election. We are about to be blitzed with everything ZANU PF has left.

* Blessing-Miles Tendi is a researcher at Oxford University.

**Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

http://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/359/47176results.jpgIt is now more than a full week since the historic harmonised elections took place on 29 March 2008 but there has been near deafening silence about the outcome of the flagship election, the presidential contest. The results of the House of Assembly and Senate elections were also released at a painfully slow pace. This has understandably generated a hive of rumours, speculation, fears and nervousness among the stakeholders, and in the nation and international community. At the centre of the mystery is the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC), a constitutional body mandated to conduct elections and referendums “efficiently, freely, fairly, transparently and in accordance with the law.” It is the CCJP’s understanding that this mandate includes but is not restricted to ensuring that the results of the elections are made public to the contesting parties and to the nation as a whole as expeditiously as possible, that is, within reasonable time.

The rumours and nervous speculation swirling around the presidential election results and the mystery surrounding ZEC’s reluctance to speedily release those results has the effect of producing unnecessary suspicions that ZEC is being manipulated to produce results at variance with the verdict of the people. This is unfortunate if only because there does not appear to be any compelling reason for the inordinate delay in releasing the results. This delay is stretching the patience of the people to the limit to the point where ZEC appears to be abusing the legendary patience of the Zimbabwe people.

We have previously noted with considerable satisfaction that ZEC managed to conduct what to many objective observers has been one of the most free and fair elections since independence though there were still many flaws and lapses. The integrity of the election body is now seriously under threat because of its disinclination to quickly make the results public and allay the fears and suspicions of the nation. If ZEC has the public interest and is not driven by partisan interests, then it surely should release the results without any further equivocation. The inordinate delay is a recipe for distrust, political tension and even instability. ZEC must not only act impartially and honestly, it must be seen to be respecting these cardinal values. So far, and with respect to the snail’s pace at which the results were announced and the apparent reluctance to release the presidential election results, ZEC is failing the test. The autonomy and professionalism of the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission have been seriously eroded and deeply compromised, reinforcing accusations of embedded partisanship and bias. In the event of a re-run of the presidential election, Zimbabweans and the international community now have grave doubts about the fairness and impartiality of ZEC to conduct the poll.

The CCJP joins the domestic and international community in urging ZEC, in the interest of peace and the search for justice, to urgently release and publicise the results of the presidential election held on March 29, 2008. Many Zimbabweans are anxiously waiting for these results; and they deserve and have a right to know. CCJPZ will continue to observe the post election period countrywide and produce reports.

**Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

The Zimbabwe Solidarity Forum salutes the Zimbabweans and their organisations who have courageously spoken out against the unacceptable shenanigans of the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission. The tension surrounding the announcement of the election results is only fuelling the deep suspicions that ZANU-PF is again involved in efforts to falsify the outcomes of an election. We have seen this before but this time it cannot and will not be accepted.

Already reports are coming in that the figures being reported have inflated the total individual votes received by ZANU, paving the way for efforts to announce a dishonest ZANU victory at Senate and Presidential levels. The corresponding increase in police and army presence on the streets of Harare and Bulawayo, the ransacking of the offices of the opposition MDC, the harassment and arrest of journalists and inflammatory statements from ZANU officials does not bode well for the democratic process.

Foreign observers are leaving the country before the process is over, media attention is already shifting to new fresher stories, but the ZANU machinery is only just preparing to unleash the full might of its violent capabilities.

The ZSF reminds key security force personnel in Zimbabwe of the statements made by the African National Congress those public pronouncements that refuse to accept the leadership of the MDC is unacceptable. As in any democracy the military in Zimbabwe must recognise that they are accountable to the state, and that the state is accountable to the electorate.

The ZSF calls on SADC and the African Union to intervene decisively in Zimbabwe. It must be made clear that violence and repression is not part of the solution to Zimbabwe’s crisis and that it will not be tolerated. South Africa must continue to engage the ZANU Politburo in dialogue aimed at preventing violence. The rigorous defence of democratic principles is critical not only to the future of Zimbabwe but for the whole of the Southern African region and the entire African continent.

**Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

Statement on World Health Day

The Zimbabwe Association of Doctors for Human Rights calls to attention the state of the public health system. Zimbabwe?s healthcare system, in a known state of crisis, is in need of urgent attention. It is crippled by dilapidated infrastructure, drug shortages, equipment breakdowns, brain drain and costs of healthcare skyrocketing beyond the reach of the majority of Zimbabweans.

Average life expectancy, according to the WHO, has declined from 60 years to 37 years for men and 34 for women during the past decade. Maternal mortality is rising to a level which meets that of the world poorest countries.

ZADHR commends health professionals and health workers in Zimbabwe who have continued to deliver health services in very difficult circumstances and remain committed to the recovery and improvement of the public health system.

ZADHR notes the need for a comprehensive national health plan to replace some of the uncoordinated ad hoc measures that have been put in place to address the crisis in the short term. Such a plan must guarantee that Zimbabwean?s are able to enjoy their right to health. The responsibility for this lies with government in consultation with other stakeholders.

Marking World Health Day, ZADHR calls upon the newly elected Parliament of Zimbabwe, amidst a myriad of challenges ahead of it during its term in office, to prioritise policy interventions to address the public health crisis in Zimbabwe. In doing so ZADHR urges the new Parliament to attend to the following key areas:

- Formulating legislation that protects, respects and fulfils the right to health for all Zimbabweans.

- Providing adequate infrastructure needed for effective and equitable healthcare such as safe running water, adequate sanitation, electricity and transport.

- Taking measures to address shortages of drugs and medical equipment in the short, medium and long term.

- Creating conditions under which good training quality for health professionals is guaranteed and ensure that conditions in which these skills can be retained exist.

**Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org