The history of African Europeans is little known, but this is beginning to change as more research is conducted on the subject. In this essay, Onyekachi Wambu, film maker, journalist, and editor of the recently published, Under the Tree of Talking featuring several African intellectuals including Chinua Achebe, Ali Mazrui, Paul Tiyambe Zeleza, Chinweizu, William Gumede, Wangui wa Goro, Kimani Ngoju, Martha Chinouya, Eva Dadrian, Marianna Ofosu and others, explores the work of black writers in Britain since the 18th century.

"Taking a stand against poverty on October 17th - Let us all join hands and say no to poverty" Tajudeen Abdul Raheem argues why we should support of the Millennium Development Goals and join the "Stand Up Against Poverty" Campaign.

Are you one of those overwhelming majority of the peoples of the world who only read of about the Guinness World Records but never has a clue how they are set and have ruled out the possibility of ever setting any of those records? Until last year I had never thought I could be part of the Guinness records myself and doing so for a very worthy cause.

Between 9.00pm (GMT) Tuesday 16th of October and 9.00 pm (GMT) on Wednesday the 17th of October 2007 you could also become a Guinness record holder. All you have to do is join millions of other peoples across the world to beat the record set last year for the largest number of people ever to 'Stand Up against poverty' and in support of the UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

It all began very humbly last year. The UN Millennium Campaign Communications group had suggested to Guinness that we could set a record of people standing up for a particular cause in a 24 hour period. Guinness had never done that before. So they set a target of 10, 000 across the world. When I heard about the 10,000 target, I was amused because and even boasted to my colleagues that I could raise more than that just by mobilizing my extended family in Funtua, Katsina State, Northern Nigeria! By the 18th of October when the results were announced my boast proved right because almost 50, 000 people stood up in Funtua, the small town where I was born, joining over 3.6 million people across Africa. Interesting even bigger numbers across the world bringing the total to: over 23.5 million in more than 80 countries.

Both the UN Millennium Campaign and its partners including the Global Call to Action against Poverty (GCAP) and its various National partners in Africa, Asia, Latin America and Europe were pleasantly surprised. Even the Guinness recorders were taken by surprise that so many people could show their solidarity with the poor in such huge numbers.

It is not just the numbers that were staggering but the range of activities and broad coalition of peoples, social classes, individuals, groups and associations that took part: schools, churches, mosques, temples, synagogues, government officials, community groups, professional associations, NGOs, CBOS, , Trade Unionists, Political parties, legislatures including local councillors, etc. They took part in cities, towns, rural areas, hamlets and town halls. at peoples homes, town centres, cinema halls, Theatres, on the streets, parks and Gyms. For instance in Abuja, Nigeria a group of Lepers in an isolated community organized a STAND UP Moment in their community telling the National GCAP Coordinator that no one in authority had ever asked for their view on anything. in Kenya an elderly grassroots mobilize wearing a Sikh-like turban stormed the offices of the Millennium Campaign demanding nothing more than leaflets and banners and went on to stun us by mobilizing over 10, 000 people to Stand up in Kariobangi!

The idea is so simple and at the same time most empowering. You can do it anywhere you are. You are not powerless. You can at least say NO to extreme poverty in the midst of global plenty. More than saying NO you can also support the MDGs as a means of eradicating global poverty and hunger, redressing the imbalances between the rich and poor countries, the rich and the poor in all societies, educating our children , treating and caring for those sick amongst us and all the other goals.

The MDGs have been criticized by many since they were adopted in 2000 but implementing them has led to better living standards for millions who were without hope seven years ago. A disproportionate focus on what has not been achieved may actually make one lose sight of the progress being made and what more could be done. For instance, millions of children who could not have passed by the gates of a school are now in school. In some countries they are moving access beyond primary school to secondary school.

In a country like Kenya the provision of mosquito nets has dramatically brought down the number of people, especially children, dying from malaria. Malawi today is only second to Peru globally in the most dramatic reduction of infant mortality. In the past four years infant mortality has come down by more than a third.

The MDGs are not cocktails that states and communities can cherry pick as they go along. Progress in one goal must demand progress in others if the success is to be sustainable. Hence Campaigners in all our countries have to focus on some of the sad paradoxes. For example, as infant mortality is coming down maternal mortality remains scandalously high in many African countries. How can we achieve the lofty goals on gender and women’s empowerment if so many women continue to die in childbirth?

In general there has been slow and patchy progress in many African countries but this does not mean that the outcome is necessarily doomed. More can be done. But this depends on citizens demanding that their governments meet their commitments made on the MDGs. Seven years may be short but it is long enough for all states to meet these goals if citizens insist and continue to put pressure on the policy makers, whether government or parliamentarians or politicians at all levels. Indifference is the enemy of delivery and a great ally of insensitive politicians.

If you think demonstrations do not make a difference please read Nelson Mandela's LONG WALK TO FREEDOM. Whatever snippets of information that the censors of the apartheid jails allowed to spill in to the prisoners cheered them up. One of the first places that Mandela first visited after his release was London. He had refused to see any body in the official government of Britain instead he had a people’s reception at Trafalgar Square to thank the people of Britain for their demonstrations, pickets, protests in support of the liberation of South Africa.

Every little bit counts. It is the small steps of ordinary people that lead to extraordinary events in human quest for freedom and liberation. Poverty is the greatest enemy of freedom today for more than a billion people mostly in Africa and Asia.

On October 16/17 every one of us will have the opportunity to show how much we care about the poor by Standing Up against Poverty and supporting the MDGs . Help us beat the Guinness record that we set last year. Over 23.5 millions of people participated then. Make it even bigger this year. You can do so anywhere you are. Look at or [email protected] or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

http://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/323/43671-Sankara-3.jpgIt is 20 years since a great combatant for African dignity, integrity and human liberation, Thomas Sankara of Burkina Faso, was assassinated. Widely recognised as pivotal to his death, his incumbent, Blaise Compaoré, meanwhile, has been in power for 20 years. Frequently compared with such dictators as Mbotu at home, his legitimacy resting solely on orchestrating the military coup that murdered Sankara.

On the commemoration the anniversary of his death that will be mourned in Burkina Faso and marked by the popular leader’s supporters throughout the world, Cheriff M. Sy, editor of the progressive and independent Burkinabe weekly political and cultural affairs journal, Bendré, recounts the assassination of one of Africa’s most important independence leaders, and assesses the legacy for his country and continent.

The tragic fate of Thomas Sankara is tied to the struggle for a social democracy. The ‘Africa mafia’, the businesspeople and their collaborators who control Africa, did not like the struggle. Therefore, he had to be exterminated. They found armed hands among the local ranks. The killing machine splurged into motion.

Reflecting on the causes of a dark Thursday

‘In favour of the meandering direction of history, this autocrat heaved himself up to the head of our revolution to choke it from the inside. This high treason was illustrated by his derision of all the organisational principles, the various denials of the noble objectives of the RDP [Rassemblement Démocratique et Populaire: ‘democratic and popular rally’], the personalisation of power, the mystical vision. As for bringing solutions to the concrete problems of the masses, everything engendered demobilisation at the heart of the militant people.’ – Extract from the Proclamation of 15 October 1987

‘People of Burkina Faso…the tragic moments that we lived through on 15 October belong to the exceptional events that often make up the history of the peoples. As revolutionaries, we must have the courage to assume our responsibilities. We did so through the proclamation of the Popular Front. We will continue…with determination, for the triumph of the objectives of the August revolution. This brutal denouement shocks us all as human beings, and me more than most, for having been his comrade in arms, moreover, his friend. For us too, he remains a revolutionary comrade who got things wrong.’ – Extract from the message to the nation delivered by the president of the Popular Front, comrade captain Blaise Compaoré, 19 October 1987

On Thursday 15 October 1987, the democratic and popular revolution in Burkina Faso was brutally arrested on the strike of 4pm. After the onslaught of the kalashnikovs, which lasted all the evening, the signed Proclamation of the Popular Front fell down like thick rain mixed with hail, surprising the RDP militants as much as those uninterested in and distanced from the revolution.

For a while, it had been known that there was a serious crisis in the national revolutionary council. Its principal leaders, formerly united, no longer agreed about orientation and strategy for action. Increasingly, the four historic leaders, Thomas Sankara, Blaise Compaoré, Boukary Lingani and Henri Zongo, appeared to be ‘too many’ to lead the revolutionary movement.

But the serious crisis that shook the RDP leaders remains mainly concealed from the grass-roots militants, to the extent that they will be surprised by the magnitude and the brutality of the October denouement.

Additionally, many sincere militants still regret the outcome of the 15 October, as it has been presented, telling themselves there had been no lack of opportunity for debates about ideas to avoid this tragic event. But those responsible for the coup ran a significant risk by giving Thomas Sankara a voice, because he was such a convincing speaker that he may have emerged victorious.

His same capacity for persuasion led to certain decisions, which have retrospectively been judged as wilful or spontaneous, whereas in his time, he did not receive such constant criticisms. And this same personality trait of the late president saved the skin of more than one soul, whom close collaborators wanted to sacrifice, over-and-over, on the alter of the counter-revolution.

In fact, we can ascertain that the interventions of 15 October and the subsequent adjustments were precisely because the comrades who had started the RDP with Thomas Sankara were already exhausted. They had neither the strength nor the heart to continue. As there were influential enemies within and outside of the revolution, they had no difficulty in rallying to their side a whole world of people to counterbalance the RDP. The invented reasoning of ‘betraying the initial path’ was rapidly conjured up.

Now, captain Thomas Sankara was the first to realise the need to democratise, which he professed in his speech of August 1987 in Bobo Dioulasso: ‘Burkina Faso needs a people of conviction, not a vanquished people subjugated to their fate.’

He thus began the genuine rectification of the RDP, otherwise marked by the release of several political and common law prisoners. The wrongly sanctioned would be able to restart their careers.

But this policy, initiated by Thomas Sankara, was quickly short-circuited by the events of 15 October, and claimed by the Popular Front. The image of Sankara as closed and hostile to openings had to stick.

Things accelerated after the speech of reconciliation on August 87 in Bobo Dioulasso, when Sankara said: ‘in recent years, we have sometimes made errors. They must not re-occur in the scared land of Burkina Faso…we must prefer to take one step together with the people rather than ten steps without the people’.

After this speech, it was necessary for his opponents to take power. Leaving Thomas Sankara time to initiate democratisation of the RDP would deprive them of a justified pretext for the plot.

The political crisis that had prevailed for some time, as is customary, benefited the military, and from then on, arms had to speak to unlock it. Such have the tactics of politicians in Bukina Faso always been. Thomas Sankara opposed this, asserting that the soldier must ‘live amongst the people’, and preaching ‘a quarter of chicken per day per soldier’.

During regular meetings with their chief, he constantly made this complaint. To which the chief in question responded that he did not see a problem, except that ‘Sankara is opposed to us’. The soldiers replied: ‘why don’t we remove him?’ By force of repetition, he was finally removed on 15 October 1987.

What happened on that day?

According to Gilbert Diendéré’s book, ‘on 15 October, with the meeting of the officers, elements in the palace accused the soldiers of Pô of organising a coup. The atmosphere was heated…we went our separate ways without reaching an agreement…we knew that Sankara had a council meeting at 4pm and we decided to wait for him there…shortly after 4pm, Sankara’s Peugeot 205 and his guard’s car arrived at the pavilion. A second security car went to park a bit further on. We encircled the cars. Sankara was in sports gear. As always, he held his weapon, an automatic gun, in his hand. He immediately shot and killed one of our people. At this time, all the men broke loose, everyone fired and the situation got out of control…after the events, I telephoned the house of Blaise to inform him. When he arrived, he was extremely disappointed and dissatisfied, above all, when he established there had been 13 deaths’.

So the coup was apparently made without the knowledge of Blaise Compaoré! He declared ‘when I arrived at the council, after the shooting and that I saw the body of Thomas lying in the ground, I failed to have a very violent reaction towards his killers. That would undoubtedly have been a monster carnage, which I would certainly not have got out of alive. But when the soldiers provided me the details of the business, I was disappointed and disgusted…when I asked my men why they had arrested Sankara without informing me, they answered me that if they had done so, I would have refused them. And it is true. I knew that my political camp was strong. Thomas did not control the state any longer. I did not need to enact a coup d’état. But, my men became frightened when they learned, after midday, that we would be arrested in 24 hours’.

However, the truth is that on that day, Thomas Sankara was in a work meeting with some of his collaborators in a room at the council. Always in the council, 70 metres away, there was a white [Peugeot] 504 with seven people. A vehicle arrives at the meeting. The few elements of the guard in front of the room do not worry, because the passengers of the vehicle are their colleagues. The vehicle pulls over; the passengers open fire immediately. A police officer and two drivers are shot dead. They collapse. Thomas Sankara is in the room when he hears the shooting. He stands up, his gun in the hand and said to his collaborators ‘stay, stay, they want me!’ Just after crossing the door, he is shot. He collapses. Do they stop there? No. The attackers entered the room and killed his collaborators.

In short, let us suppose – and it is difficult – that the thesis that captain Blaise wanted to impose on the fait accompli were true. Would that however exonerate him? Would he not have been indirectly at the root of the tragic events of 15 October? Is he not the main beneficiary of the plot?

The man, even if he had never been really thirsty for power, as he claims, leaves any observer of political life in Burkina Faso sceptical all the same. Effectively, after 15 October, he proved that the power cannot be shared. The entire cohort of intellectuals that constituted the insurrectionary committee that psychologically prepared for 15 October with a series of filthy leaflets and intrigues of the lowest order will learn this at their own expense. Commander Boukary Lingani and captain Henri Zongo will learn at theirs.

Today, 20 years later, what should we remember?

Beyond the rhetoric, Sankara died because of his patriotic and progressive convictions, but also because he prevented some of his civilian and military comrades and soldiers from eating luxuriously and spending handsomely, to the detriment of the people.

When he arrived, his country was a ‘mournful synthesis of the sufferings of all humanity’, held the world record on infant mortality, and had permanently negative trade and agricultural balances and extremely high public debts. He wanted to make his country a land of dignity and freedom.

Thus courageously, he redefined the sum total of all the possible and the thinkable ways in which the development of a country among the most denuded in world could be envisaged.

On the evidence that underdevelopment and dependency could not be resolved without the integration of the marginalised, he engaged his country in progressive social transformation.

Sankara’s revolution was simple: work more, spend less and spend better, produce more, be concerned with the priority needs of the country. He said ‘our revolution is and must be permanent; the collective action of the revolutionaries to transform reality and improve the concrete situation of the popular masses our country. Our revolution will only have a value, if, looking back, we will be able to say that the people of Burkina are a little happier because they have clean drinking water, sufficient food, good health, education, decent housing and more freedom, more democracy, more dignity. Our revolution will have a right to exist if it can answer these questions concretely.’

Within a few years, he had achieved a qualitative jump for his country. But he remained aware that the essential questions of his people were those of his whole continent and of all the exploited and oppressed people. Pan-Africanist and anti- globalisation activist, he knew how to be the voice of the voiceless.

http://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/323/43671-death-certificate-of… afternoon, bullets of the assassins shot Sankara dead. He fell, but had had time to sow the seeds and sprinkle them with his blood, time to break a link in the chain and free the oppressed youth of Africa.

He was a precursor of an alternative policy to the dependency and enslavement that the global economic institutions continue to impose by their model of development based on indebtedness.

Most importantly he has contributed to the understanding of his people and all the oppressed that a credible alternative cannot come from outside to save them. It is only by relying on themselves and their intrinsic capacity that they may ‘dare to invent the future’ and find the keys of their development and freedom.

Today, in each of our movements for social, political and cultural advancement, Sankara, the man, lives on in us. He will remain forever in the collective consciousness. He will be an example to those struggling for the liberation of humankind.

Link: Thomas Sankara -

* Cheriff M. Sy is director of the weekly Bendré publication providing information and reflection on Burkina Faso, http://www.journalbendre.net

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

* Translated and adapted from the original by Stephanie Kitchen.

http://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/323/43669-Sankara-4.jpgMukoma Wa Ngugi celebrates the lives of Thomas Sankara and Che Guevara, and in doing so, asks us to remember all our other leaders and heroes who died at the hands of colonialism and apartheid.

In April this year, we celebrated 50 yrs of Ghana’s Independence. This October, in addition to remembering the revolutionary promise of Che Guevara executed forty years ago, we will also be remembering that twenty years ago, Thomas Sankara was assassinated – a stark reminder that we are still in the state Odinga Oginga called Not Yet Uhuru. We will be remembering that if Africa suffers today, it is because yesterday its best political minds, and its most fiery and committed sons and daughters were assassinated. All for thirty pieces of silver, for tea, coffee, oil, diamonds, gold, cobalt, uranium and African sweat.

But we should also remember the living. Aziz Fall, the co-coordinator of the International Justice Campaign for Sankara (ICJS) has been receiving anonymous death threats since December 2006. They tell him “stop or be stopped” “commit suicide or face execution” and in the last one, he was informed that his family would be targeted. His crime? Coordinating 22 lawyers dedicated to using legal means to find the truth behind Sankara’s assassination.

The ICJS helped Mariam Sankara, Thomas Sankara’s widow, take her case to the United Nations after, predictably, the legal system in Burkina Faso stalled each time she appeared in court. Finally, in March 2006, the United Nations Human Rights Committee ruled that Sankara’s family has “the right to know the circumstances of his death.” The Committee also argued that failure to correct the natural death entry on Sankara’s death certificate, refusal to investigate his death, and “the lack of official recognition of his place of burial” pointed to “inhumane treatment of Ms. Sankara and her sons” contrary to Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Dictators and your torturers all over the world take note! Article 7 declares: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” In a strange way, the death threats against Aziz further validate the UN ruling.

Victoria Mxenge, Ruth First, Steve Biko, Amilcar Cabral, Samora Machel, Chris Hani, Mhodlane, Kimathi and many others dead at the hands of colonialism and apartheid. But what makes the assassinations of Sankara, Lumumba or Maurice Bishop of Grenada all the more painful is knowing that they were betrayed by those closest to them Then, without exception, they were succeeded by less able people- to say the least. Their successors are egregiously guilty of violently pulling back their societies miles behind the starting line.

After Lumumba, Mobutu –a common thief who under the guise of a shallow nationalism - maimed, killed and stole in the Congo. In Grenada, Bernard Coard’s bloody counter-revolution allowed a predatory U.S. to invade Grenada. And in Burkina Faso, each day we see what President Blaise Compaore has done with the Sankara revolution.

Life expectancy is 47.9 years, adult literacy, 21.8 percent and Burkina Faso now has the dubious distinction of being ranked the 3rd poorest country in the world with 80 percent of its 13 million people living on less than two dollars a day. In November of 2007, Compaore will be running for presidency, again. I say give him five more years to see if he can do it – Let him get Burkina Faso the coveted first place title of poorest country in the whole world!

For a nation to heal, it must know and come to terms with the truth of its past. And it must make good with the promise of that past. In Kenya Dedan Kimathi was hanged and buried in an unmarked grave in Kamiti Prison by the British in 1957 where the post-independence government left him. Having set Kenya on neo-colonial rails and rewarded the collaborators with land, then turned their backs on Mau Mau veterans, both Kenyatta and Moi wanted what Kimathi stood for forgotten. Compaore is afraid of the truth because Sankara is a reminder of how far he has fallen from the promise of the revolution. Compaore knows we know he cannot make good on Sankara’s promise.

We have to remember our dead. But our presidents prefer gold monuments and statues. Sometimes they cultivate heroes’ acres without growing freedom. Better the monument be societies that are free and egalitarian. Instead of grand monuments, it is better we have nations that would welcome the revolutionary dead. Because truth be told, Nkrumah would not have been welcomed to Ghana’s 50 year celebrations. Kimathi would not be welcomed in today’s Kenya and Sankara would be assassinated again in today’s Burkina Faso.

What if Sankara had grown old with us? Would he have become a dictator as we have seen with many? We do not know. But we know how he lived, we know what he died for and his promise. That is what should matter.

Koni Benson, a friend and agitator, named her son Sankara because, she said, “What Thomas Sankara did, tried to do and what happened to him, should not be forgotten. Sankara is the history and the future of the continent. He dared us to invent the future.”

As we remember our dead – Let us also remember the living. We have to dare to dream again. We have to dare to remember the past. And we have to dare to act.

* Mukoma Wa Ngugi is the author of Hurling Words at Consciousness (AWP, 2006) and Conversing with Africa: Politics of Change (KPH, 2003), and editor of the forthcoming, New Kenyan Fiction (Ishmael Reed Publications, 2008). He is a political columnist for the BBC Focus on Africa Magazine where a shorter version of this essay first appeared.

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

I do want to commend Henning for his piece on Namibia and what is being lost in the process of clamping down on those who are seeking to heal the wounds of a liberation process which has maimed, tortured and killed some of the best among Africans.

Thank you Henning for pointing out what more could be lost if we do not raise the same voices which led to removing the shackles of apartheid. As I see it, the way truth and reconciliation processes have been dealt with, especially from the South African example, have left a lot to be desired. I am not interested in going through a step by step analysis of what was wrong. One could go for a long time. For those who are interested in seeing how a novelist has offered his view on how to go about healing, I recommend Ayi Kwei Armah's Healers which came out in 1978 as a disguised response to Chinua Achebe's things Fall Apart.

Armah's Healers, I am sure, will have its detractors, but it shows that the only way to heal from any wound, however deep is to go back to the most positive values of our societies, unflinchingly and without fear. Unfortunately, fear is one of the emotions most easily used and abused by those who want to insist on only one truth, their own.

Yet, healing, the desire to heal, like love, is one of the most universal emotions. Leaders who would lead their people toward reconciliation and healing would bring out all the burried truths which, like all truths, sooner or later, shall come out anyway. Such leaders should let go of their own fears or shame. Fears of being accused of being weak, shame of knowing specific cases of people who should never ever been tortured, maimed or killed.

To heal is probably one of the most difficult things to do because, given the dominant mindset, it is perceived as a sign of weakness to accept that something wrong has been done to oneself or to others. The dominant mindset stresses power through relentless violence. The enslavers and then the colonizers used to remind themselves that the only thing Africans understood was violence and brutal force. The more brutal the better. The dominant mindset can be seen at work in the Middle East, in Darfur, in Irak. It is highly contagious, especially among those who end up exercising state power. I remember reading about someone who had been in Robben Island (No it was not Mandela) and who had written a piece in a philosophy journal. His main point was that thefight against apartheid was a double fight: one to free the whites from themselves and then to free the blacks from the yoke of apartheid.

The equation has not changed: one has to continue fighting to free those who are in power to free themselves from how they have come to define power in the very same way as the previous holders. Real, deep, lasting healing can only happen as far away from the shackles of state power. If state or parastatal rationale is brought to bear it will derail any serious attempt to heal. Healing can only happen if all sides let go of habits and difinitions which are antagonistic to healing.

Can one heal without the help of state power? Indeed, the only way to heal is without the help of state power.

I shall stop here because it is my sense that Henning has touched upon one of the rawest wounds not just left over from colonial rule, but from way way back, from many layers. In that spirit, would it be wrong to suggest to the scandinavian countries which decided to pull away from Namibia that there are other possibilities (and, who knows, maybe they are doing it), such as encouraging European nations, the Vatican, the US, Arab nations which benefited from Atlantic and Oriental slavery to acknowledge what happened as a crime against humanity. The size of which is difficult to measure, except by going through a healing process where the primary concern is to heal from the mindset which developed out of the consequences (the benefits) of the crime. If it is started as a genuine process, then it could lead to real, deep and long lasting healing. Not just for Africans, not just for the victims, but for all humanity.

Thank you again Henning.

Tajudeen Abdul Raheem argues that Western posturing against Zimbabwe, particularly in the case of the British, stokes the cause of the Mugabe apologists. Instead, he argues, solidarity should be with the ordinary people of Zimbabwe, who should not be distracted from demanding their government be held accountable to them.

There are very few African political activists who have been publicly consistent in their criticisms of
President Mugabe and ZANU-PF of Zimbabwe. I am one of them. But we are not very many. That is not because Africans do not care about what is happening in Zimbabwe; but because the external dimension: regime-change agenda induced from UK and US, and internal racial dynamics of the struggle have both combined to work in Mugabe's favour.

My position is made more difficult by the fact that I was until early last year Secretary-General of the Pan African Movement. Mugabe is indeed one of the most respected and admired leaders in the Pan African Movement, so how can I be criticising one of our icons?

Readers who routinely sent me text or email messages: 'well said'; 'aluta continua comrade'; 'give it to them man', etc, have been outraged by my stand on Zimbabwe and Mugabe. One close comrade, a well respected academic lawyer, wrote to me stating categorically that I should add a disclaimer at the end of my columns. He suggested: 'the views expressed are my personal views not necessarily the view of the Global Pan African Movement'. Both legally and politically, he is correct. But I was puzzled that he never felt it necessary to give me this legal advice until Mugabe became an issue!

One of my critics, a veteran of black struggles in the diaspora, even went as far as to suggest that my columns are syndicatedly written by the MI5 and CIA! My response to such lurid accusations is that if the CIA and MI5 could recruit me without my knowledge, then we must give them credit for good judgement!

More seriously, I have not been surprised by the hostile reactions. President Mugabe evokes extremes of passions, with no one being neutral. He is regarded by many Africans and pan-Africanists as the Liberator, the icon of anti–imperialism, the bold and courageous African leader who is able to look at imperialists in the face and say: 'to hell with you'.

In a historical period when Western arrogance and US hegemonic unilateralism are making many people angry, eliciting powerlessness and hopelessness, many are willing to embrace anyone who dares stand up against the West, especially the US. The same sentiments that drew many to admire Saddam Hussein, as an agent of the US for many years, regardless of his atrocities against his own people; or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran today in his vitriolic attacks on the US, or Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. Many who are unsympathetic to socialism nonetheless admire Castro and Cubans for standing against the US and for having defied it for almost five decades, less than 100km from the coast of Florida! These are seen as leaders who refuse to bend to the wishes of Washington. Even other leaders, especially from the poorer countries of the world, are silently applauding them.

In the case of Mugabe, legitimacy is also derived from a genuine liberation struggle that many regarded as being ambushed by a 'Lancaster House compromise'. Therefore, they see Mugabe as returning to the unfinished agenda, differing from the negotiated settlement that led to independence in 1980. Many are stuck in 1980 and Chimurenga, and fail to judge Mugabe and ZANU PF for almost three decades of monopoly power in the country.

When this is pointed out, a lot of apologetics say that Lancaster House prevented any radical solution. But Lancaster was for only 10 years. Why then did Mugabe not restart the Chimurenga in 1990, instead of being forced to do so in the late 1990s by the veterans? But seeking answers to these questions are like arguing with Jehovah' witnesses!

What also strengthens the pro-Mugabe lobby is the evident hypocrisy of the West in dealing with the
Zimbabwe. Why is Mugabe singled out? Where were they in the mid-1980s when Matabeleland was wasting in ZANU's drive for a one-party state? Would they be making so much noise had Mugabe not attacked and repossessed land from white settlers, whose ancestors - with British imperial force - had grabbed the lands from black people? Is Mugabe being punished as a warning to the ANC in neighbouring South Africa: not to even dare to address the grotesque land inequality in that country?

It is the historic wrong against blacks in Zimbabwe that makes many Africans generally sympathetic to Mugabe, even if they will disagree with some of the methods. The pressures from the West, which is silent about similar or worse excesses of human rights, government authoritarianism and dictatorial leadership by other African leaders, but chose to make Mugabe a scapegoat, work for Mugabe apologists.

That is why the current debate sparked by Britain's Gordon Brown on the forthcoming Africa-EU dialogue scheduled for Portugal later this year can only make Mugabe's position more formidable. Britain is the least qualified country to grandstand anyone on Zimbabwe. Brown can not be threatening the rest of Europe with boycott because of one man and one country. If the dialogue is indeed between Africa and Europe, why should one side be laying down the terms?

Why do European leaders think they are the only ones with a public to respond to? African leaders must not accept this. If they do, they will prove to their people that they are spineless poodles of imperialism, whose only question, when asked to jump by the West, is not why, but how high?

However, rejecting the arrogance and hypocrisies of European leaders should not mean that we should endorse the excesses of President Mugabe's prolonged one-man-rule. Political and ideological suspicions of the opposition do not justify the attacks on them. In any case, our solidarity should be with the people of Zimbabwe, who may be ZANU loyalists, MDC supporters or neither. As citizens, they deserve to demand that their government be held accountable to them.

A disproportionate focus on the West's agenda is making us compromise in our duty to express this
solidarity much more boldly.

Tajudeen Abdul Raheem is the Deputy Director for the UN Millennium Campaign in Africa, based in Nairobi, Kenya. He writes this article in a personal capacity as a concerned pan-Africanist.

David Martin was a writer and photographer, and later in life, a publisher. He was a rigorous researcher and investigative writer who exposed the calamity and cost of South African economic and military destabilization in southern Africa in the 1980s. He marched with Frelimo into the liberated zones of Mozambique in 1973, where he met the Zimbabwean military commander, General Josiah Magama Tongogara, during the last phase of the liberation war.

Tajudeen Abdul Raheem tries to decide whether politics, the business of political parties and money are in a greater state of disarray in Nigeria or Kenya. Or, who is more politically enterprising between the Nigerians and the Kenyans? Contrary to popular assumptions, it seems East Africa is winning!

I used to taunt political science colleagues in Nigeria that they were political voodoo magicians.

Given the unpredictability of Nigerian politics, and the ease with which the political class changes colours and allegiances from regime to regime, it is difficult to see that there can be any scientific basis for teaching politics in that country.

For instance, there are some people best described as orphans of the Nigerian state. They have been part of government in one way or the other almost all their lives.

Looking at some of the emerging power brokers in Aso Rock today, it would not be correct to say treachery and betrayal do not pay. Because neither have diminished their proximity to power! Some of them are and indeed deserve to be decorated as traitor-generals of Nigeria!

Many of them may not even win elections in their clans. But somehow whether military or civilian, they remain there. It is not science, but the creative art of power that is needed to understand the cabal that Aminu Kano would have described as being ‘consistently inconsistent’!

That’s why I even went as far as to suggest to my tormented fellow political scientists that their political science departments across the country should be closed down on the grounds of 'unfair trade description'. Because they claim to be teaching what is not really there.

But it was not my intention that they should all become jobless. Instead they needed mass retraining in order to be absorbed into Business Studies; since it is not politics that guides politicians, but money.

Therefore the science of Monetics may be more appropriate than political science theories in understanding how the country is governed and mis-governed.

Why bother to teach students democratic theories about parties, groups, elections etc, when political parties do not exist as alternative sets of policies to be canvassed in free intercourse of public debate and policy options, and from which the electorate can choose.

To the extent that there is any political party at all, all the politicians belong to AGIP (Any Government in Power)!

Now living in Kenya, one of the most politicised and ethnicity-obsessed countries in Africa, I am beginning to think that I have probably been most unfair to Nigerian political scientists.

You do not need science to understand Kenyan politics either. But the Nigerians need to come and learn from the masters here. It is pure business and memory-loss that you need to make sense of it at all.

President Museveni of neighbouring Uganda may have thought that he invented 'individual merit' and 'No Party Democracy' - which he imposed for ten years before donor pressures forced him to change tune.

But it is in Kenya where the ultimate privatisation of politics through a veneer of multi-party democracy is really being popularly practised.

For instance, last weekend, President Kibaki finally announced to a bored public that he was going to be standing on the platform of yet another new party (Kenya has more than 100 political parties), called the Party of National Unity (PNU), itself a coalition of 14 of the so-called Kibaki-friendly parties.

The same president had been brought to power on the platform of a coalition of similar parties in 2002. No sooner had they got rid of KANU and President Moi, cracks develop between the main parties in the National Rainbow Coalition (NARC).

It precipitated a parting of ways with prominent leaders like Raila Odinga and Kilonzo Musyoka, who defeated the president and his allies in the constitutional referendum under yet another coalition, the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM).

NARC was a coalition against KANU/Moi and his chosen successor, Uhuru Kenyatta. But ODM was a coalition against KIBAKI that included Uhuru Kenyatta/KANU. It even had the support of the much hated former president, Moi. They defeated the government. The euphoria was such that if elections were held, then they could have chased Kibaki out of the State House.

Elections were not held but the ODM lasted as a united group for much longer than many had predicted.

Eventually the improbable cohabitation of highly ambitious politicians finally gave way to a break-up, that meant Musyoka going away, but the other leaders remaining together.

And this is where the parallel with boardroom dynamics of Kenya political dealers reveal themselves most clearly.

It is in Kenya that I have come to realise that political parties are registered the same way as companies. You declare officials as you declare directors. You choose a name. As long as no one else has not registered it, it is yours.

Even if someone has registered the initials, you can still get it by adding 'K' (Kenya) or some other initial to yours. That’s why you have FORD, Ford K, Ford Asili, FORD people or NARC and NARC-K, ODM and
ODM-K.

Whoever has the certificates 'owns' the party! You do not even have to have members.

The owner needs not be a member of the party. He or she just happens to be the person to have registered it. You then wait until some politician needs the name, and you exchange it for cash!

In their initial triumphalism, the Orange people did not immediately register the ODM. So some smart lawyer beat them to it. They could not get him to relinquish the party, so they registered as ODM-K.

Then Musyoka found that he could not stop the Raila bandwagon for the ODM-k nomination. But he had the four aces. The chap who had registered the ODM-K was the close ally and kinsman who ‘gave him’ the certificate.

Raila and the majority leadership realised that this piece of paper will confer ownership on Musyoka. So they went back to the other dealer, and 'persuaded ' him to ‘give’ the certificate to Raila. He did the 'handover' in public!

So Raila and his allies became 'owners' of the original ODM, while Musyoka pocketed ODM-K.

Kibaki had similar problems and resolved them similarly!

After the exit of Raila and co. from NARC, the remaining NARC rump in government had problems about ownership. Mrs Charity Ngilu (whose National Party of Kenya had been used to register NARC) remains the original registered chairperson of NARC. She has refused to take out the certificate from her handbag.

Pro-Kibaki members of the government, frustrated at Ngilu’s non-cooperation, went ahead to register a new party, NARC-K!

So, you have a situation where most of the politicians, including the President and his leading challengers, are no longer members of the party or coalition that brought them to power.

Kibaki's people felt that NARC is no longer easy to sell to the public, with or without 'K', so they just bought themselves another party from the shelves!

In the new pro-Kibaki PNU coalition of parties - wait for it - is one Mr Uhuru Kenyatta. His faction of KANU and his benefactor, still looking after him, former President Moi, now a leading campaigner for Kibaki - who had defeated KANU and Uhuru!

Now you tell me who is more politically enterprising between the Nigerians and the Kenyans?

Next time you are checking for stocks and shares on the Nairobi Stock Exchange, you may want your financial adviser to check out what possible combination of names of parties are not yet registered, instruct him or her to snap them up, and wait for the next round in the game of musical chairs among the politicians that is bound to happen. Sooner or later, you will cash in your big bucks.

Tajudeen Abdul Raheem is the Deputy Director for the UN Millennium Campaign in Africa, based in Nairobi, Kenya. He writes this article in a personal capacity as a concerned pan-Africanist.

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

This is just to say that I liked your argument. I wish it could be much more publicised and made compulsory reading for all those 'delegates' to the AU or SADC conventions.

It is about time that African heads of government took a serious look at the plight of Africans in African countries being abused by African leaders.

I would appreciate more material on similar matters as I am in the opposition in Zimbabwe.

On 12 September 1977 we were on long vacation in preparation for going into our final year as students of government secondary school, Funtua (then part of the north Central State of Nigeria but now in Katsina state), when news broke that Stephen Bantu Biko, the militant charismatic leader of the Black Consciousness Movement of Azania (BCMA) had been murdered by the apartheid security forces.

We were heart broken and angry. Steve had come to prominence and became our idol as a result of the Soweto protests of 1976 that thrust a new generation of militant youths into the leadership of the liberation war in South Africa. A popular musician, Sonny Okosun had ingrained that struggle in our popular consciousness in his album ‘Fire in Soweto’ just as Peter Tosh did with ‘Get Up Stand Up’ or Bob Marley’s ‘Exodus’, ‘Africa Unite’ and other songs.

Nigeria, though under a military regime (the charismatic Murtala Mohammed later succeeded by Olushegun Obasanjo) was in its most radical and assertive Pan-Africanist foreign policy regime in those days. Nigeria chaired the UN Anti-Apartheid Committee, even though it did not share borders with the apartheid state of South Africa. But by virtue of its readiness to put its money, diplomatic and political resources where its mouth was, it became a very active member of the frontline states.

Murtala Mohammed had been decisive in resolving the Angola impasse that pitched MPLA and many African states against UNITA and its Western masters - principally the USA. There was a celebrated public exchange of words with President Gerald Ford (who had taken over from disgraced Nixon as US President) just before the OAU Special Summit in Kampala on 11 January1976. Ford had written to all African leaders basically instructing them not to recognize the MPLA. The decision to recognise MPLA hung on a balance with a number of states dithering or just too cowardly to resist America’s pressures. On his way to the summit, Murtala took the unusual step of publishing not just Ford’s offensive letter but also his own brand of diplomatic response to it that basically meant: SHUT UP FORD! In Kampala he gave a powerful speech that is still remembered by many of my generation today: AFRICA HAS COME OF AGE. To crown it all the Nigerian Government refused to allow the haughty US Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger from visiting Nigeria pleading they could not ‘guarantee his personal security’!

We used to follow these events and read the speeches in the media. As secondary school students we used to be impatient to enter the university so that we could be joining in the protests, marches and public demonstrations organised by university students.

The media in Nigeria - especially the newspapers and the radios (more accessible at the time than the TV) were full of stories on Southern Africa, the racism faced by Africans on their own soil, the duplicities of the west in aiding and abetting the criminal system simply because the lure of gold and other minerals blinded them to their own professed religion and pretences to loving humanity.

Oscar Wilde’s prayers of ‘praying to live in interesting times’ could not have been better answered. We grew up in that anti-imperialist and pro-liberation and unapologetically Pan-Africanist era with popular support for the struggles in South Africa, Angola, Mozambique and southern Rhodesia (later Zimbabwe). It was a period when even the old OAU was most united on the liberation agenda. There was concrete solidarity in most of the countries except reactionary ones like Banda's Malawi or Mobutu's Zaire, (who openly collaborated with apartheid) and later on states like Moi's Kenya, Houphoet Boigny's Ivory Coast (that were allowing their countries to be used as conduits for breaking trade sanctions).

You can imagine the outrage, public and private grief of many when the sad news broke about Steve Biko's assassination. There were mass protests, public outpourings of grief and declaration of continued support for the struggle for liberation in Southern Africa. Some of us were even young and certain enough to demand that the Nigerian government should allow us to enlist in a volunteer army to go and fight in South Africa!

No one was deceived by the official line then that he had hung himself in his cell. A white Journalist, Donald Woods, who was a close friend of Biko’s, was one of the bravest people to have exposed the lies about Biko's death right from the start. He had to go into exile but he did not relent turning the tragedy into a mass selling book and even more widely seen movie ‘Cry Freedom’. Subsequent revelations during the truth-and-no-reconciliation (reconciliation without truth) hearings confirmed the more gruesome aspects of the evil act against humanity by the apartheid state.

Biko was young, passionate, fearless and visionary. In less than a decade he led a whole generation of young South Africans to reject Bantu education, to be proud of their African heritage and to refuse to be second class citizens in their own country.

While the older generation of liberation fighters in the older organisations were mostly ‘gentle men’, anxious to prove that they are or could be as educated and 'civilized' as the whites, the Biko generation not only asserted their equality but believed that they are better than whites in many areas especially culturally, spiritually and morally. It was South Afrioca’s moment of SAY IT LOUD , I AM BLACK AND PROUD. For a people that have been made to feel inferior through deliberate miseducation and religious manipulation, the arrival of Steve Biko changed things both psychologically and philosophically.

Only recently I was watching the film, Good Bye Bafana, about Mandela and his jailer in Robben Island. In it you hear white prison warders and their immaculately dressed island trophy wives in their officers’ parties reaffirming their fate that apartheid was god's way of things. Biko helped many Black youth to reject such gods and helped opened the eyes of many whites too, even as he frightened the apartheid powers that be.

He and his colleagues did not just hope and pray for freedom one day. Deep in their burning hearts it was not overcoming their oppression one day: they believed in freedom and wanted it there and then. Biko's vision and courage resonated with the young, the most critical social category in any project of social transformation. They are the ones with much to gain and much to lose. The movement inspired doomsday scenario in the Boers and the apartheid state that their future was no longer as secured as their propaganda made them believe.

In killing Biko and doing so in the most fiendish way, they sought to kill the hope and aspirations of the youth of South Africa. However, you cannot murder the future. Instead they martyred him, making him an icon of the liberation struggle. Biko's life and example again proves that to make a lasting difference it is not how long one lived but how well one served. His was a very short life but one that is continuously remembered and revered for his dedication and commitment to freedom. Not just in Africa, but also among all strugglers for justice and human dignity.

I remember going to Belfast in the 'trouble days' in Northern Ireland as a guest (part of an all black delegation from mainland Britain) of Sinn Fein students (terrorists in those days!). The Irish take very seriously the tragedy of dying and martyrdom. They tend to gravesides with the same passion of their sectarian divide. They also have beautiful murals all over the place celebrating their mostly young dead partisans. I was stuck by the number of Steve Biko murals I saw along with those of Bobby Sands (the IRA prisoner whom Margaret Thatcher allowed to die on hunger strike in the infamous Maze Prison).

There was another part of the many experiences of that trip. I became very popular (in republican circles) during the two weeks we spent there because many of our hosts thought that I was Steve Biko's brother and would never allow me pay for anything! Maybe it was because in those days I was a bonafide revolutionary perpetually in jeans and beret with huge beards to match! Thank God there were not many BOSS (apartheid's intelligence) operatives around in Belfast. However come to think of it our Irish hosts did not make mistakes because Steve Biko was indeed one of the greatest brothers in the struggle.

On the 30th anniversary of his assassination we say to him, as he stands by the ancestors, that his soul should not rest, because it is not yet Uhuru in Azania though some 'comrades' have been privatised as Rand multibillionnaires.

Mukoma Wa Ngugi's Article on Political activism (Pambazuka News, Thursday 2 August 2007), which I very much enjoyed reading, reminded me to put my fingers down and share observations from my recent visit to Uganda. In fact it fits very well into Wa Ngugi's observations about the struggle to communicate and realize Pan Africanism for peoples of Africa. I agree for the most part with his argument, that Pan Africanism cannot be left to the elites but should be a people's struggle. However, the case he cites of Cuba and another not mentioned of Tanzania, shows that the elite took the high road of forging national unity among their people higher success. Therefore, I believe the same strategy should be adopted for most of Africa and particularly, my country-Uganda.

First, my disclaimer is that not all African political leaders and elites are doing enough to promote the spirit of Pan Africanism and national unity similar to Fidel Castro or Mwalimu Julius Nyerere. Many of our leaders are in political leadership for their own ideology or their satisfaction, and that partly explains why none of the 53 heads of states could agree to United States of Africa at the recent Accra Summit. However, nor are Africa “people organizations” and ordinary people doing a lot to realize the dream of African unity. In fact there are more Afro-pessimists about African unity than are Afro-optimists, as if this is a new invention. Many Africans move further away from Pan Africanism once they become richer and more exposed to the world outside their own.

In Uganda where I am from, success is measured in terms of who has the most exposure to foreign (read western) culture, material goods or lifestyle. Value is placed on who can purchase the latest Germany Mercedes Benz, the latest Swedish Nokia phone, American jeans, Japanese electronic or who speaks with an American, British accent or French. It is not uncommon to listen to newsreaders imitating a “British Accent” on Uganda airwaves. Little is celebrated of those people in the local manufacturing industries who produce cooking ware, car engines, household equipment, storage containers and farm tools. Little is celebrated of national sports, as most Ugandans associate with European sports clubs. For instance, there are more supporters of England's Manchester United football team in Uganda than are supporters of the national football team, the Uganda Cranes. In fact many Ugandans are quick to purchase Manchester United T-shirts but would not donate a shilling to promote national sports. If you quickly surveyed the Uganda public on their favourite football team, very few people would claim the Uganda Cranes as their favourite team. Ugandans love to consume what they do not produce, and despair what they produce. I returned to Uganda recently after seven years when I left to work and study in South Africa and the United States. Throughout this time, people have told me of the changes in Kampala, and many said I would not recognize the city when I returned. That was partly true because there were more new and celebrated Ugandan musicians, actors and fashion designers than seven years ago. I was amazed that Uganda music has replaced Congolese music as the dominant entertainment on national airwaves, clubs and discotheques. I saw more shops selling African fabric and more Ugandans (particularly women) wearing African clothes, as opposed to the pre-dominant European attire. Of course the European suit and tie is still very popular among men and European skirt and jacket for young professional women. Indeed, there were more designers of African fashion, more enterprising young people in business and more positive outlook on life. However, many of these new developments lack an element of originality or indigeneity and/or are carbon copies of foreign products. For instance, many of the Uganda musicians tend to copy the dressing, dancing and singing style of African American. I am not saying there is anything wrong with African Americans. I am wondering why Ugandans musicians do not promote a “Uganda brand” as a national identity, and strategy for global marketing and competition? It is more likely to find Ugandan entrepreneurs branding their businesses with Europeans names or Europeans cities. For instances, there is an enterprising Ugandan who is one of the pioneers of world-class private boarding secondary schools in the country. His school has branches established across the central region with names such as London College and Paris Campus. One wonders why he didn't continue with the initial naming of branches based on location, such as Kabaka's Lake Campus? Of course the other concern that comes to mind is the kind of identity this school principal is trying to create in these students. Is high-class education only comparable to London or Paris not Uganda? Should these students look toward further education in London or Paris, instead of investing in a higher education in Uganda and participate in national building?

Even Uganda fashion designers feel that tagging western labels onto their products would increase their sales? I went into a store owned by one of the most celebrated Uganda fashion designer to see her “Ugandan brand”. Instead, what I saw were clothes familiar to me from New York City stores and on European fashion runways. I wondered if the 'designer' had not sewed on her own logo on clothes purchased in New York? If not, why did she have to copy New York and European fashion? I am being too hard on her, when it is possible that New York and Europe copied her creations? It was hard for me to buy that reasoning because when I went to another store selling African prints with my mother to buy an African print shirt for my brother, the tailor had sewed on “Calvin Klein” labels. I asked her if Calvin Klein would sew on his clothes “Ugandan” or “Nalwoga” (a random name for a Muganda). She felt that I was insulting her while my mother said I was so “Westernized” in my behaviour. Personally, I thought that I was carrying my Pan African torch by questioning the mentality in Uganda that tends to assume that everything Europeans (read white) is what sells.

Around the same time, I attended another event that made me mad about Ugandans obsessions with the Western hemisphere. It was the unveiling of contestants for the 2007 Miss Uganda beauty pageant contestants at the Kampala Serena International Conference Centre. Contestants were asked questions regarding their dreams, hobbies and their role models. Out of the 27 girls, only two or three mentioned Uganda role models. The rest mentioned personalities mainly in the United States, such as Oprah Winfrey, Bill Clinton and Michael Jackson. One contestant went as far to state that her dream was to become that first female president of the United States! Did she know it was Ms. Uganda beauty pageant!

Then again, one cannot blame the entrepreneurs, artists or beauty queens from despising the Uganda brand when the heads of state do not serve by example. When our President's family wants to give birth, a presidential jet flies her to Germany because they do not trust Uganda hospitals. The President does not trust Uganda doctors, even though Uganda-trained medical professionals are sought after the world over. The rich send their children Europe or North America for higher education, instead of investing in Uganda's cheaper and world-class public universities. These destinations are also favoured for shopping and vacation by many “well-to-do” Ugandans, even before they visit a neighbouring African country. Now there is a new trend of Ugandan women flying to the United States to have their babies, so that their children become US Citizens and benefit of the riches of this world”! This behaviour does not convince me that our first priority as Ugandans and Africans is pan-Africanism. We do not invest in the beauty of ourselves, exploring our own surroundings and building our continent before we enrich those economies that we worked so hard to build as slaves. We cannot put our roads, garbage disposal and utilities to proper public consumption yet we are quick to feed the pockets of European and American markets. Uganda's President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni is a highly known public proponent of regionalism, yet the main trade route between Uganda and Kenya via Busia border is full of potholes on either side. In the US, which we Ugandans love to imitate so much, “the-haves” rich do not make a name by consuming Ugandan products. They donate to their Alma meters or to non-profit institutions where they can have their names erected on building and held in memorabilia. Conversely, Ugandans prefer to make a name by spending holidays in the west (even in winter), imitating western accents or clamouring for US passports. Should I be surprised that I am despised at most African immigration points I go through with my Ugandan passport while holders of Europeans or North Americans passports go through with ease, most often without visa? So, Wa Ngugi needs to convince me that surely, the people will lead the Pan African struggle and we do not need strong political leaders to steer the wheel.

* Doreen Lwanga is African Scholar, Researcher and Activist working in the areas of Pan-Africanism, African security, and Higher education in Africa.

* Please send comments to or comment online at

First, a statement of principles; Every African is obliged to stand up for equality, democracy, human rights and social justice - not just for ourselves as individuals or only in our villages, cities, countries and regions - but for all Africans across Africa regardless of gender, ethnicity, race, political or religious beliefs. These must be the bedrock of genuine Pan-Africanism. All of Africa's anti slavery, anti colonial and liberation struggles regardless of their shortcomings [and yes they had shortcomings] were based on these very principles and the concept of an Africa United for social and economic development is nothing but empty rhetoric if it is not based on them.

Consequently for any body genuinely concerned about the future of Africa there can be no politics of convenience. To be sure, the Zimbabwean crisis is not the only crisis in Africa, and this writer believes that all African's must engage any crisis that endangers the social and economic development of Africa on the basis of the above stated principles - be it in Darfur, DRC - or Zimbabwe.

However, the Zimbabwean crisis is arguably the only ongoing crisis in which one side (the incumbent government) and its supporters have mobilised African support and silenced many by asserting more or less that its critics are sympathisers, supporters or agents of foreign interests and former colonial masters. This has wrongly narrowed the framework of the debate on the Zimbabwean crisis into an oversimplified context of African nationalism and anti colonialism versus imperialism and colonialism. If the name of Africa is being invoked in justification of government policy then Africans must have a position on it. As we sometimes say, you can't call on your people, and not expect your people to call on you.

The above in turn underlines an outstanding feature of the crisis - that the current Zimbabwean government is based on the country's liberation movement - which was supported by the majority of Africans, people of African descent and anti colonialists universally against the undemocratic minority white Rhodesian regime of Ian Smith and its supporters. The Zimbabwean government has re-mobilised this historical support by positioning itself as continuing the liberation struggle to “reclaim our land”.

By framing issues in terms of: Are you for land reform or not? Are you for or against white farmers? Are you for or against colonialism? Are you for Africans or the colonialists? President Mugabe has posed in a more sophisticated way; the rhetorical statement so crudely articulated by George Bush that it eventually backfired - “you are either with us or with the enemy”.

Such “you are with us, or with the enemy” rhetoric regardless of the cause which claims to serve, its sophistication or crudeness is dangerous to human rights, to social justice and ultimately to Africa's development because it suggests that anything can be done in the name of defending 'us' against the alleged 'enemy' or even worse, that anything can be done to alleged 'enemies' in the name of defending 'us'. It also suggests that no wrong can be done in the name of fighting the alleged 'enemy' and ultimately that anything but unquestioning loyalty is betrayal.

The continuously evolving logic of such rhetoric is that the definition of enemy is elastic and 'they' [but not the government] can be held responsible for anything and everything that goes wrong. Any acceptance of such a political philosophy by either African citizens or leaders will stagnate intellectual progress in all fields and place Africa in a state of permanent backwardness.

We must make no mistake about it - all of human progress - in science, technology, the social sciences and politics, philosophy and the arts - is based on challenging and improving the status quo or building on previous 'standards'. Put simply, all of human progress is based on rigorous examination of existing conventional wisdoms and on dissent. Every African and in this case every Zimbabwean must therefore have, and exercise the rights to freedom of opinion, expression, association and assembly without fear of, or actually being beaten senseless, incarcerated or killed. A situation in which people face potential sanctions for not toeing the official line - are assaulted by 'law enforcement' agents merely for singing and dancing [to anti government songs], women are detained for peaceful protests, passports are seized and lawyers are beaten for representing clients is absolutely unacceptable. If it was wrong for minority white regimes to have such policy and practice, it is even more wrong for a black majority government based on a liberation movement to do the same.

Africans cannot accept any policies from people on whose behalf we protested when the same treatment was meted out to them. All Africans must therefore stand firm against any idea that being in 'opposition' means people are not human, or that they are human but don't have human rights. It's a question of principle. All political parties must be aware of the possibility that they will not always be in power - including ZANU-PF. Then they will expect their rights to be defended.

If the state of social and economic development is a key indicator of the state of affairs in a country, a no less important indicator lies in the possibility that all citizens can criticise their government and its policies, offer alternate opinions and ultimately change their government by civil means if that is the wish of the majority. No government - not even the governments of or leaders of liberation movements can arrogate to themselves perpetual wisdom and power.

People can debate indefinitely whether or not the Zimbabwean crisis is as a result of poor government policies, or has been provoked by sanctions and dirty tricks campaigns by 'colonialists' or both. What there is no debate about is that there is a political crisis linked to the apparently indefinite stay in power of President Mugabe. There is absolutely nothing anti Mugabe about anyone wondering if after 20 years as President another Zimbabwean out of its over 12 million citizens - whether from his party or any opposition party - cannot be elected to lead the country.

In Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Tanzania, Zambia and other countries leaders of liberation or anti-colonial movement governments have stepped down and are still living - Mandela, Kaunda, Chissano, Nujoma, Mkapa and the list is growing. In Ghana and Zambia where the last African Union and SADC summits respectively held and the Mugabe government made it a point to mobilise its supporters there have been successful changes of the party of government in 2000 and 1991 respectively without the roof caving in on those countries. 20 years is enough for any President to make contributions to the progress of his or her country. Nobody needs foreign governments to tell us that. On the whole African democracy is not perfect but on the balance it is heading in the right direction. Zimbabwe cannot be an exception to this progressive trend.

The African Union under the stewardship of Chairperson Konaré (himself a former leader of Mali that also led by example) has come a long way from the OAU and it must underline this point. It is a sign of progress that the AU leadership and many member governments have so far agreed with African rights campaigners that leaders of countries with unresolved rights and governance issues cannot Chair the AU unlike the days when even the worst of despots like Idi Amin could Chair the former OAU with impunity. The AU and SADC must continue in the spirit of the AU constitutive Acts, SADC Declaration and other key principles and discourage the idea that African leaders must stay in power indefinitely so as to avoid defeat by colonialists. The colonialists have essentially been defeated. That is why the country is called Zimbabwe not Rhodesia, and President Mugabe not Ian Smith has been President for 20 years.

Yes some foreign interests will continue to meddle in Africa, whether directly or through proxies - this happens in almost all parts of the world. But the future of Africa is now in the hands of Africans. Our governments can therefore not adopt the same repressive policies of the colonialists in the name of continuing the fight against them. It is important to emphasise that democracy is imperfect universally and also that the pendulum of power often swings from one end to the other between ideologies, parties, and factions within parties. Parties also evolve and change and what they stand for today may not be what they stood for yesterday or will stand for tomorrow. For example, the world watched in disbelief during the 2000 Bush versus Gore election fiasco in the United States which were it to have happened in Africa under the same circumstances would have been described as “typically African”.

In the spirit of parliamentary democracy with no term limits, former Conservative leader Margaret Thatcher whom presided over the last days of the Rhodesian regime and whom regarded the ANC in South Africa as a 'terrorists' was tempted to go on indefinitely after 11 years as UK Prime Minister until hounded out in tears by anti poll tax mass protests and her own party. Most recently former Labour leader Tony Blair under pressure from his own party and the public barely managed to negotiate a dignified exit after 10 years in office.

In Latin America where some governments would consider themselves as liberation type governments, Daniel Ortega and the Sandinistas for instance lost elections in 1990 to openly foreign backed Contra's after coming to power in 1979 on the back of a popular rebellion that overthrew the Somoza dynasty. By the 2006 the Sandinistas had been voted back into power. How may people looking at US politics today would realise that founders of the Republican party in 1854 included anti-slavery activists and that the Democrats now heavily supported by African Americans once benefited handsomely from slave owners. The point here is that majority of African countries have been independent for only between 13 and 50 years and Africans must take a longer-term view of political history.

If despite obviously democratic imperfections many African and non African countries have managed to change leaders and parties of governments without the world coming to an end, there is no reason why it is impossible for Zimbabwe to have a future without President Mugabe in power, or for President Mugabe to live without being in power. Even Ian Smith leader of the Rhodesian government that committed countless atrocities against Africans and swore that Black majority rule would never happen has lived in post colonial Zimbabwe - and is now a grand old man of 88.

There is nothing personal about upholding democracy; the interests of the citizens of a country must always come before that of the leadership of any government. The above underlines the fact that people can also debate without end about whether the Zimbabwean economy is collapsing, has already collapsed, or will never collapse. The fact is that an estimated three million [undoubtedly very Black] Zimbabweans have fled the country with many living as refugees in neighbouring countries. They must be running from something. We now face the debacle of armed racist farmers on the South African Zimbabwe border fulfilling their racist fantasy by being presented with opportunities to hunt down and round up Zimbabweans fleeing across the border in the name of defending South Africa from invading “illegal foreign criminals”. Even if the present Zimbabwean government claims it bears absolutely no responsibility and that drought, withdrawal of credit lines, sanctions or even the cycle of boom and bust that has caused recessions even in advanced industrial economies is responsible for the economic misery, the fact is that it is almost impossible to offer alternatives without being “bashed”.

No one but the government can be blamed for the rash of legislation that has no other role than to contain, intimidate or suppress criticism and peaceful opposition. The laws and policies speak for themselves “Public Order and Security Act”, “Interception of Communications Act” and so forth. How many people demanding uncritical loyalty for the Zimbabwean government would happily live under laws which its just a question of a matter of time before anyone becomes an arbitrarily victim. It makes no difference if the foot in the boot kicking you and your rights into a dungeon is Black or White. A kick is a kick.

'Sanctions' cannot be blamed for everything. By way of comparison Cuba a country of similar population and even greater anti-imperialist zeal has faced well-documented and comprehensive blockades, sanctions and invasions [not to mention numerous assassination attempts against its leadership] by “foreign interests” over a greater 40-year period and on a scale far surpassing anything Zimbabwe will ever experience. Despite obvious democratic deficits, the Cuban government has won grudging admiration of even its critics because healthy life expectancy in Cuba - at 67 and 70 years respectively for men and women respectively - has risen and been sustained at a level equivalent to and in some cases higher than in the most advanced industrial countries. In Zimbabwe current healthy life expectancy has sunk to 34 years and 33 years respectively for men and women, also making Zimbabwe one of the countries in the world where men are expected to live longer than women.

This is not an endorsement of any section of, or all of the opposition, or even of hypocritical foreign policy from some countries - but rather of the right of all citizens including the political opposition to exist without fear of repression. Just as we know that being a liberation fighter does not guarantee that anyone will be the best possible leader in government, we all know that being an 'opposition' movement or leader is not a guarantee that anybody will do better than those they seek to replace. Regardless, one of the indisputable conditions for the development of Africa is that the principles and culture of democracy must be institutionalised. No one should insult the memory of countless Africans murdered by colonial settlers to facilitate stealing of their land by suggesting repressive laws are necessary to implement or defend land reform. Without doubt land reform is a necessary part of social justice for Africans, but it must be judicious, equitable and transparent land reform based on respect for human rights and the rule of law - not land reform used as a political cudgel to 'bash' all critical voices.

I have heard some people argue that the 'enemies' of Africa now crying about human rights did not burden their conscience with such luxuries when benefiting from 400 years of industrial scale slavery, colonialism and brutal exploitation of Africa and its peoples. In other words, that 'white farmers' deserve some of their own medicine. Not only does such thinking reduce African's to the moral bankruptcy of colonialists, it also fails to understand that it risks granting unlimited and indefinite power to Africa's actual and imaginary liberators such that we may all end up be shackled by them. Africa's liberation movements drew their moral strength from the fact that on the balance, they fought for social justice, human rights, equality and democracy - for all - not for card-carrying members of ruling parties.

The philosophical algebra of this equation is that there should be no expectations that these principles can be discarded as inconvenient while still counting on the unwavering support of all Africans. Africans must therefore unite for social justice and human rights across Africa - including in Zimbabwe. Some people also think that because of either real or imagined 'western' hypocrisy we must always give unconditional loyalty to the Mugabe or any government that claims to be defending Africa against 'imperialism'.

The hypocrisy may be real but our primary concern must be the welfare of Africans, not whether President Bush as part of his politics of convenience - supports the Musharraf military regime in Pakistan which was suspended from the Commonwealth in 1999 for overthrowing an elected government (while simultaneously passing the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Act), or even whether some of the western media engage in 'colonial mentality' reporting which fulfils negative stereotypes of Africa. Our health care system, education, food and overall social justice and development must come first. It is impossible to build on development achievements if everyone must agree with official policy. Regardless of party affiliation nobody's stomach is neutral on the question of hunger. No disease asks for your party card.

While all Africans with any dignity must remain firmly anti-colonial and anti-racist, we must also view with scepticism any blanket anti-western and anti-white rhetoric. Not withstanding that some foreign governments described the ANC and other liberation movements as “communists” and “terrorists” or both, while simultaneously supporting bandit governments such as the Mobutu regime, Africa's anti colonial and liberation movements were supported by millions across the world including from the West. Even some governments such as the Swedish were proud supporters of liberation movements and post independence governments long before it became fashionable to do so.

President Mugabe is a former teacher and one of Africa's most educated and experienced leaders. After over 2 decades in power, he does not really need anyone to tell him that it is not only possible to be in office without being in power; it is also possible to be in power without moral authority. Once any leader anywhere gets to that point it is irrelevant what you claim to stand for. What will become relevant is that you did not stand down when you should have done so - of your own free will - and in the best interests of your people.

*Sankore is a Pan-Africanist and Human Rights Campaigner.

*Comments and responses to , or comment online at

Between August 29, 2007 and September 2, 2007, a Tribunal of 16 esteemed jurists from nine countries, including Algeria, Brazil, France, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Mexico, South Africa, Venezuela, and the United States, convened in New Orleans to hear testimony by experts and survivors of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. After hearing nearly 30 hours of testimony by hurricane survivors and experts – covering government neglect and negligence in 15 areas, ranging from police brutality to environmental racism, from misappropriation of relief to gentrification, the jurists announced their preliminary findings.

Tajudeen Abdul Raheem exposes the humour and absurdity in cultural and racial prejudices, and situations where Africans have absorbed ridiculous and pernicious colonial rules and persist in inflicting them on their fellow citizens. 'The main reason why many of the anti-African biases and petty apartheids persist is because too many of us put up with them. We really need to wake up', he writes.

There are so many prejudices, insults and stereotypes between different peoples, races, religions, nationalities and other social groups in the world. Many of the violent conflicts unnecessarily claiming so many lives use such prejudices to justify themselves. But prejudice need not to be openly violent in order for it to be injurious to human beings. There are many such irrational attitudes commonly displayed in action, speech and conduct whose cumulative effect is to rob other human beings of their dignity, self esteem and right to equality with other human beings.

While prejudices are generally expressed by 'others' towards 'others' over time, some of the victims of such prejudices may actually internalise them and use them against themselves or believe them to be true. An obvious example is the widely used notion of 'African time'. If a European, American or Chinese person is late, nobody blames it on Britain or Sweden, America or China. But if Tajudeen is late the whole of Africa takes the blame. Even Africans use it to justify their lateness.

There are many other examples. But the one that triggered this week's column was a recent experience I had in Lusaka, capital city of Zambia. We had gone to one of the many South African-owned or designed shopping malls that are springing up in capital cities across Africa, paying homage to Africa's growing middle-class consumerism. We had scheduled to meet up with my good friend, veteran agitator, Sarah Longwe and her equally cantankerous partner, Roy Clarke of the famous Kalaki Corner, a satiric column in The Post Newspaper that irks Zambia's establishment so much that, but for the courts, they would have deported him back to the England he left decades ago, and in spite of being married to a Zambian woman.

Our rendez-vous was a popular restaurant and bar called Rhapsodies. I had gone with another friend and colleague in the UN Millennium Campaign, Salil Shetty. I was in my 'native' Nigerian up-and-down Kaftan and trouser with a traditional hat to match. As we made to enter, a burly security man in an ill-suited tight uniform beckoned me to stop. I asked why and he said I had to take off my hat because men are not allowed to wear hats in the bar. Roy and Sarah, who could see us from the open air verandah, were already agitated and leapt to their feet screaming at the security man.

They needed not have bothered because I was very prepared to deal with the situation. It has happen to me a few times in southern Africa before. The last time it was in Zimbabwe. I was staying at the Great Zimbabwe hotel by the Zimbabwe ruins. I had gone for supper, when this huge bouncer by the gate in ridiculous multi-coloured English costumes with bowler hat and long tail suit tried to deny me entrance because 'gentlemen are required to take off their hats for supper'. I told him that part of his statement was correct: I am a man, but as for being gentle, that may not fit, as he was to discover soon after. I asked him why I needed to take off my hat, and he said it was the rule. Set by whom? And how many years after liberation from the Rhodesians?

I asked him if I had been wearing a Jewish skull cap and looked Jewish if would he have stopped me. His answer was that the Jewish skull cap was a religious symbol. How did he know that my hat was not a religious one? He drew blank because these rules and conventions were imposed to keep Africans away. Or model Africans in a particular way in order for them to belong! Needless to say I did not take my hat off. The good sense of the manager prevailed after I threatened to leave without paying for the accommodation since I was not welcomed.

So my Lusaka expwerience was just an echo of that experience. When I pointed out to my Zambian bouncer that he was also wearing a hat his only response was that 'it is part of the uniform'. So I humored him that my hat could also be part of my cultural uniform but it was above his programmed mind to see the joke. By this time Sara was at the entrance and Roy was ready for a fight. Just imagine the scene: an Englishman defending the right of an African to wear African dress including his hat to another African in an African country! How insane can our world get?

I was not budging and Salil, an Indian, was just enjoying the spectacle. The opposition was unyielding and nobody came to his rescue so he stepped aside and I entered.

It is true that we live with ridiculous rules but there is nothing that says we have to implement them, especially when they offend our good taste and sense of being. In many of the cultures of west Africa the wearing of a hat is considered part of a normal or formal dress code. I know that in eastern and southern Africa the wearing of a hat has acquired religious connotation.

When I was living in Uganda when I wore a hat people generally greeted me with ' salaam alaykum', whereas when I was not wearing one, even if I was wearing west African tie-and-die clothe, they would not assume I was a Muslim. Christian missionaries and later colonialists attacked many aspects of our culture in their 'civilizing mission' but continuing with some of these petty rules so many years after the formal end of colonialism is a sign of the enduring legacy of the colonial mindset. Most of them are like a petty-apartheid, which we can do away with. For instance have you ever wondered our five star hotels and no-star ones offer 'continental breakfast' on their menu which does not mean the African continent? Can you imagine being in a hotel in Europe and asking for a continental breakfast that does not mean the European continent?

The late martyr of the anti-apartheid struggle, and Black Consciousness of Azania leader, Steve Biko, once observed that one of the best weapons in the hands of the oppressor is to set up his General Headquarters in the head of the oppressed. How true, sadly so, this is, in all manners and in every day things of our lives. In some countries it is still being debated whether African dresses could be accepted as 'proper dress' for formal occassions. The main reason why many of the anti-African biases and petty apartheids persist is because too many of us put up with them. We really need to wake up.

Woza AFRIKA!

* Tajudeen Abdul Raheem is the Deputy Director for the UN Millennium Campaign in Africa, based in Nairobi, Kenya. He writes this article in a personal capacity as a concerned pan-Africanist.

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

Tajudeen Abdul Raheem comments on African leaders' apparent contradictions between regionalism and contintenal unity, and how their quest for regional integration is becoming a smoke-screen for slowing political union. But, he says, 'How can you argue for gradualism at the continental level and not concede the same at regional and national levels? That is the ridiculous but logical conclusion of the gradualist argument about pan-Africanism. They will never be ready.'

Tajudeen Abdul Raheem surveys the state and status of names in Africa, in particular the legacy of Western colonialism, and identity politics around 'Arab' names. He argues that although names are very important both culturally and symbolically, they do not in themselves confer Africanness or commitment to Africa, which is measured by 'what we do, what our values are, and our concrete actions'.

The government should expedite the process of dual citizenship for members of the Diaspora, former Minister of Tourism and Diaspora Relations Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey said Wednesday after the launch of the Joseph Project.

Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem reflects on the political processes in Britain after Blair and looks the fall of Thatcher and the origins of New Labour. Can you imagine, he asks, a similar situation in Africa?

In the past two weeks I have been in countries with a 'new' head. I left Yar'Adua's Nigeria for Gordon Brown's Britain. For the first time in ten years one entered Britain without having to put up with the arrogant and sanctimonious Blair and his spin doctors. The Long Good Bye is finally over. For those who think it is only African leaders who are desperate not to leave office just look at how long it took the Labour Party to get rid of their Savior-turned-Judas of a leader. Unfortunately for the Palestinians, this fraudulent prophet has been made their interlocutor. How a second-hand leader parceled by Bush could be their savior I do not know.

I must confess that I have not made the transition from Blairism to Brownism properly. Seeing Brown on television in Britain I was still looking at him like the Chancellor he had been for the past decade. But being in Britain got me thinking about the many years that I have spent in that country.

It is a big shame that Africans do not write about Westerners the way they write about us; but we keep complaining about their prejudices, inaccuracies and false knowledge about the African condition.

Two weeks safari in the Masai Mara and someone becomes an expert on our foods, lifestyles, culture, history, geography or whatever. Millions of Africans have been in the West from time immemorial, but we do not lay claim to being 'Europeanists'!

It is one of those vicarious 'benefits' of the British imperial past that as 'commonwealth ' citizens, British-resident citizens, immigrants and settlers from former British colonies (except the USA which has its own uncommon wealth in which Britain shares!) can vote and even be voted for in British elections. Being voted for has been relatively easier for citizens from the old White Commonwealth of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, though second generation descendants of the non-white Commonwealth from Asia, the Caribbean and Africa are also beginning to break into the system (though they are more successful at the local levels than in the British Parliament in Westminster).

The visibility of black MPs both in parliament and government positions including the Cabinet only serves to show how uncommon it is. They are so few that we know them all; they become instantly famous just for being black! One of the ironies of uncommon wealth politics is that many Africans have probably had more opportunity to vote and be involved in democratic politics in Britain than in their own countries. I have voted more often in Britain than in Nigeria. And this is not just because I have been away for 'too long', my peer group who did not live outside have never had many opportunities to vote since the military had been in power for most of their lives. Until recently, military rule with civilian interludes has been the order of the day. Thankfully that is now more or less over and we are now in the era of 'voting without choosing' or choosing without making any difference.

It can be argued though that even in more stable societies elections do not change much because there is too much public contentment or governing consensus among the ruling classes, and between their main political parties. Consequently, politics has become more commercialized, money and media driven, with no disagreement on fundamentals therefore reducing politics to forms of presentation largely devoid of substance. Hence the increasing democratic deficit in many Western democracies of voter apathy, especially among the young.

All that taken into consideration, and despite obvious Americanization, British politics in the 1980s and early 1990s still inspired great ideological disputes and debates, essentially because of the Thatcherite Conservative counter-revolution that tore apart the old consensus within the British political establishment. She shifted the politics to the extreme right, provoking moderates, the 'noblese oblige' type Tories in her own party, and all kinds of leftist opposition in the Labour Party, the Labour movement and eventually the whole country.

The main opposition Labour Party swung between left and right for many years, even provoking a split that led to the walkout by more openly right-wing elements who felt that the militant left had taken over the party and made it unelectable. They formed the SDP which initially attracted a lot of support from across the board among people who wanted a different kind of politics from the tribal war between the Tories and Labour. Unfortunately for David Owen and his tiny bunch, the two party system (and its ethnic, provincial and regional voting patterns) is so embedded in Britain that the room for a third party (let alone a fourth one) is extremely limited. They merged with the Liberal Party which had always operated as the halfway lounge between the Tories and Labour. Their hopes of becoming a powerful third force, holding the balance of power in a 'hung parliament', evaporated as Labour became more and more moderate and electable.

What really happened in the Labour Party was that the smarter right-wingers did not leave the party but bided their time and embarked on a long term right-wing counter revolution inside the party, involving a reform of old ideological positions and a loosening of the traditional Labourite, socialist and egalitarian conscience. The emergence of Neil Kinnock as the Party Leader facilitated the right-wing coup. He came from a staunch Labour background, solidly in the left of the party and a credible working-class hero. He sold moderation to the party and the movement and helped to begin the process of Labour recovery and electability by facing down the hard left and Labour militants. Still, he lost two elections to Margaret Thatcher but held Labour votes and increased it as the Conservatives took lower votes. Unfortunately Kinnock did not make it and lost the 1992 elections to a little known John Major after the Conservatives had committed political matricide by getting rid of Margaret Thatcher. That was the last time I was most passionately involved in British partisan politics.

I was there on the foot steps of the Old Labour Party Headquarters on Woolworth Rd in South London when Kinnock conceded victory to Major and announced his resignation to crying party supporters. The second day you could not find many people who would admit that they had voted Tory. If it was in Africa opposition supporters would have cried 'rigging' because the media and popular opinion widely predicted a Labour Victory. From then onwards I never really bothered about being active in British politics anymore even though I remained a passive supporter of the anti-Tory movement. After Kinnock it was John Smith who unfortunately died very early in his leadership. His sudden death made it possible for the brewing right-wing coup to be brought forward with Blair emerging as the Leader. Had Smith lived longer who knows if Blair would have been that fortunate? Smith was very much to Kinnock in opposition as Gordon was to Blair in power. One does the politics and the other the economics.

The party was hungry for power and in Blair they found a winner even if it was at the expense of their ideological souls. Brown continued Smith's number-crunching that made business interests to begin to take Labour seriously as managers of British capitalism. The Labour party became more middle class.

In power Mr. Blair was more of an adopted political son of Margaret Thatcher, more at home when battling the Labour party and so called OLD Labour values. The Thatcherites used to sing: 'If it is not hurting it is not working' to justify their assault on the poor and to subsidise the greed of the rich and powerful. In Blair's Britain it was punned to mean: If the Labour Party is not complaining, it cannot be right. Even when he seemed to have conquered every tendency, save for a small group of non- conformists, he would deliberately pick quarrels with the Party. He was the closest Britain got to having a truly Presidential PM and the Peoples' Party became the Leader's Party. For a few years it seemed he could walk on air and water. He took on the party and won, took on the Government and won, and then he took on the British people on many issues- but Iraq was to be his Waterloo from which his authority never quite recovered. In politics, as in real life, once an elephantine problem knocks you down then all kinds of crawling crawlers will climb on to you. Like Thatcher he was kicked out after 'winning' a consecutive third-term electoral victory.

Blair's fall from grace is proof, yet again, that whatever goes up will come down; but politicians like other human beings never learn. When they are up they never think they will come down and they always do. However there are important lessons. One, a politician is the servant of the people not their master, no matter how popular he or she may be. In a genuine democracy, as in a real consumer driven society, the citizen (i.e. customer) is always right. Two, political parties, parliament, judiciary, the media and other autonomous institutions are necessary for democracy to take root and democratic culture to be nurtured. Strong leaders influence people and institutions and sometimes destroy them. But for sustainable democracy these institutions must endure. It was not the electorate that threw out Blair or Thatcher before him, but their own political parties on whose behalf they were acting.

Can you imagine a similar situation in many African countries? The President will dissolve the party and dissolve the Parliament! Three, there must be credible alternative leaders, whether within the ruling party or outside of it, deliberately nurtured without being considered traitors or disloyal. Can you imagine if Gordon Brown had been a Cabinet Minister in some African country? Would he have retained his post breathing down the President's neck for so long? In the worst of cases he would probably be dead by now or hounded out of cabinet or politics or be in exile.

However, there are encouraging signs in some countries like Ghana, Botswana and Tanzania. The immediate Foreign Minister of Ghana, Nana Akuffo Ado had never hidden the fact that he wanted Kuffour's job, having been beaten to second place by him in 2002. Similarly, the current President of Tanzania, Jakaya Kikwete, was a runner up to his predecessor and remained Foreign Minister for ten years before becoming President. However in many countries up to now even mere suspicion of the ambition can land you in 'hot soup'. These are countries where the people are not supposed to even imagine life without the current occupant of state house. However, no matter how long it takes they will all become 'former current chairman' as Idi Amin famously said of himself!

Blair's exit also shows that sometimes people may just want a change for the sake of it. I am not sure there is much ideological difference between Blair and Brown, but there is a difference in style and presentation. In the end people just got fed up with Blair and his lectures, his missionary strictures and braggadocio. The truth though is that Brown even takes himself more seriously as an intellectual politician than Blair. Both domestically and internationally there may be more action than words, and probably less of the razzmatazz and media obsession of the Blair years. But it may well be the same difference on many issues.

With huge apologies to the Indian writer, Arundhati Roy, It's the God of Small Changes. The Conservatives remain unelectable because thanks to Blair and Brown all their clothes have been stolen by New Labour. Just like the Tories prevented a Labour victory in 1992 by having a change within with John Major. Labour may have guaranteed itself a fourth term by being rid of Blair. Unfortunately, David Cameron sounds more like a Blair clone. May be he should just vacate his post and give it to the real Blair, currently wandering like Moses in the Middle East as Cameron is getting lost in Rwandan villages in the name of showing Africa he cares. Blair did the care for Africa, and this never led him or those Africans naïve enough to trust him, anywhere.

* Dr. Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem is the Deputy Director for the UN Millennium Campaign in Africa, based in Nairobi, Kenya. He writes this article in his personal capacity as a concerned Pan-Africanist.
* Please send comments to or comment online at http://www.pambazuka.org/

http://www.pambazuka.org/images/broadcasts/madaraka.jpgMadaraka Nyerere, the son of the former President of Tanzania, Julius Nyerere, talks to Adam Ma'anit from the New Internationalist for Pambazuka News.

Madaraka Nyerere was in London to re-launch the Arusha Declaration, the document which is the foundation of socialist principles practiced by Nyerere's government, with the Global Women's Strike.

Madaraka explores the reasons why Nyerere's policies have been demolished by capitalism, and the relevance of his father's work for modern Africa and the women's rights movement.

See for more on the publication of the Arusha Declaration.

Music in this podcast is brought to you by Busi Ncube from Zimbabwe and kindly provided by Thulani Promotions.

Tajudeen Abdul Raheem writes on the recent elections and presidential transition in Nigeria, and concurrent popular protests. He notes that it cannot be good for accountability that the resident president is not held accountable, because people are too obsessed with a former president. Instead, he argues that a new alliance and broad coalition for change needs to be built, to exert democratic pressures on the political system.

I was in Nigeria all of last week. It was my first time in the country since the innauguration of President Umaru Musa Yar’ Adua, following an election that is universally believed to have been flawed in practically all senses. There were threats by very angry politicians and aggrieved activists that 'Yar Adua will not be sworn in', come 29 May.

The first test of that threat was on 1 May, when the Nigeria Labor Congress (NLC) called for mass protests during its traditional May Day activities. I happened to be in Abuja at the time. Many of the activists thought the May Day events could become a wider protest about the elections, that would make the country ungovernable. It came to pass without the kind of mass support that was expected. However, a more popular protest called by the NLC after Yar Adua had been sworn in was more successful, because it was based on issues (yet another hike in the domestic oil price) that most Nigerians can easily relate to.

Anybody with a less partisan take on the dynamics of the power play should have realised that flawed as the elections were, it was highly unlikely that the new president would not have been sworn in. Even with the electoral challenges in the courts from the candidates of opposition parties, there was no way the state would have allowed a legal lacuna and political vacuum. But I was speaking to an unwilling audience of friends and compatriots. I warned them against making threats that cannot be enforced. Moses had more luck in his exile on the mountains. Part of the problem with the protests had to do with the anomalous situation of there being no credible leader to rally the population and transform their anger into political force that cannot be ignored. The truth is, that all the parties rigged where they could. But the PDP, being the ruling party at the centre, had more powers and better opportunities for robbing people of their mandate, essentially through control of the results declaration by an openly partisan electoral commission. The process by which the leading presidential challengers in other parties, governorship and other candidates emerged in the various parties was mostly imposed by powerful cliques.

In spite of the vast powers of the ruling PDP, in areas that are very strong opposition turfs like Lagos, Kano, Zamfara or Abia states, the incumbent governors used their popularity and advantages of incumbency to successfully checkmate the PDP machinery and retain power. Therefore, when it comes to rigging, most of the politicians, especially those in the three leading parties (PDP, ANPP and AC), cannot thump their chest about who is cleaner. Yes, Nigerians were robbed of their votes. But one does not intimate that the sense of loss at the national level is in terms of whether candidate A or B had been robbed. The fact that the politicians were not calling for the results to be cancelled in the areas where they had won presented other challenges.

How can the election be flawed only where the ruling party had won? Sections of civil society were calling for cancellation of the whole election, and a re-run. But the politicians who had 'won' were certainly not in favour of that, regardless of their parties. There were also those who had called for an interim government, which was also not a realistic option, because of the political interests at stake.

Nigerians may be aggrieved and remain extremely bitter. But not many are willing to die for any politician anymore, since there are no fundamental differences between them, apart from the ‘I want to chop too’, or ‘I want to be this or that’ - without any bother about policies or alternative programmes for the emancipation of the populace from poverty and want amidst plenty.

The situation is further complicated by two important factors. First, there is resignation that Yar’ Adua would probably have defeated the closest two of his many rivals. Second, the personality of Yar Adua himself - as non-confrontational, being unknown and therefore greatly underestimated - focused more attention on Obasanjo who had orchestrated his nomination and presided over his anointment. There was and still is great anger at the former president.

When I returned to the country early in July, I was hoping that by then the dust was settling, and that there would be a more sober atmosphere in the country. How wrong was I?

There are still many grieving democrats who are refusing to accept that Yar Adua, barring an unlikely decision in the tribunal to nullify the election, will be president for the next four years.

Talking to the usual chattering classes of media pundits, NGO activists and opposition-sympathising politicos, one could make the mistake of believing that General Olushegun Obasanjo is still the tenant in Aso Rock. Every decision or non-decision of Yar Adua is analysed through the lenses of Obasanjo still driving from the back seat from his country home in Ota farm.

In part, Yar Adua’s style of stoic silence in the face of public pressure makes him vulnerable to accusations of being a puppet of the former president. Nigerians are so used to militarised leadership, where things are done ‘with immediate effect’, by executive fiat, that they think Yar Adua is indecisive for taking time before nominating his cabinet, and making senior appointments in dribs and drabs.

If we rewind back to 1999, it took Obasanjo quite some time to exert control over his government. In fact, until his second term, he did not have full control of his administration. Unfortunately for Yar Adua, he does not have four years to wait. However, he will not act in the ways critics of Obasanjo would like. They want him to go after Obasanjo openly, which will not be wise, given the current power balance within the ruling PDP. A president who does not know where the cutlery is cannot start inviting people to dinner!

But as happened between Obasanjo and those vested interests that brought him to power: what goes around comes around. Yar Adua will sooner than later enforce his footprints on his administration and the party that brought him to power. The first cabinet will not be his personal 'A' List. The list of special advisers and key para-statal appointments may be more indicative of his policy thrust and political direction. Obasanjo's so-called 'dream team' did not come into cabinet until his second term, but most of them were key advisers or heads of para-statals.

Obasanjo should know better; that government by proxy does not work in Nigeria. However, the elixir of power is difficult to shake off. It is most deadly in its hangover effect on ex-presidents.

It is not just the pathological anti-Obasanjo elements in Nigeria that believe he is the power behind the throne, and look for him under every executive bed. From all available evidence, Obasanjo, too, is suffering from this grand delusion. I call it Executive withdrawal syndrome.

For now, Yar Adua can enjoy the unusual convergence between the two. This will mean that all his bad decisions, failure or inability to make any decision can be blamed on Obasanjo’s pressures. The good ones will be interpreted as evidence of his becoming his own man! I even read paid adverts and news reports in Nigerian newspapers warning Obasanjo to 'leave Yar Adua alone' - as if he had complained to anybody! It is quite unrealistic to expect that the PDP and the former president from the same party will not attempt to influence the president. That's what politics is all about. But to assume that a president is nothing but a creation of his sponsors removes human agency and turn politics into a game of zombies.

If Obasanjo is the only one putting pressure on Yar Adua, that is the only pressure he will respond to. However, if the grieving democrats can come back to earth, exert their own pressure and engage on their own issues, they may be suprised at the kind of potential influence they could wield. Issues around reform of the electoral process, constitutional reform, freedom of information, transparency and accountability, and independence of the judiciary could be important entry points. The pressure for reform cannot be driven by the political class. Most of them have lost all moral and political credibility. A new alliance and broad coalition for change needs to be built, to exert democratic pressures on the political system. It needs CSOs, NGOs, mass labour, youth, student and women's movements, and other popular forces in strategic partnership with democratically minded elements in the system.

My fear is that people are too obsessed with Obasanjo, baying for his blood and daring Yar Adua to wield the sword. This may actually make Yar Adua take it as his mantra that it is good for him to be permanently underestimated by his opponents. As long as they continue to blame Obasanjo, he may have more room to do what he really wants to do. It cannot be good for our accountability that the resident president is not held accountable for his action or inaction, because people are too obsessed with a former president!

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