Pambazuka News is proud to announce that Mildred Kiconco Barya, one of our regular contributors, has won 1st Prize for the Africana Fiction section in the Pan-African Literary Forum (PALF) writing contest. She will receive a full scholarship to the conference, which will be held from 3rd -18th July 2008, in Ghana, as well as publication in a special section of A Public Space. Please join us in offering Mildred our heartiest congratulations.

Tajudeen rages against the attempts in Kenya to criminalise African language media. The state should be making laws to protest society and be willing to sanction those who use the media to exacerbate ethnic tensions rather than seeking to ban them.

African Languages should not be criminalised. In this column last week I wrote about the demonisation of the media in Kenya as Kenyans tried to exorcise themselves of their recent ghostly past.

The media is not without its faults but to blame it for the hatred, violence, wanton destruction of property, neighbours killing one another and communities turning against themselves is simply finding a scapegoat. Such a convenient foil will make it possible to let off all the other culprits and in this case the grand architects of the mayhem, the politicians, the political class, and Kenyan ruling class in general who whip up these sentiments and manipulate the genuine grievances of the masses in pursuit of their own personal and class interests.

As the grand coalition government that is increasingly exposing itself as lacking many grand people, struggles to take off the politicians who were only a few weeks ago sprouting all kinds of extremist statements are uniting against everybody else , becoming holier than thou in preaching national reconciliation, peace and trying to outshine one another as ‘the patriotic Kenyan’! Everyone else is guilty except the political leaders.

The Nairobi Star (Saturday May 10) reported on ‘radical proposals’ emerging from the recent bonding retreat of the new government : ‘vernacular radio stations should be closed down, cabinet ministers agreed …’ . The decision according to the report ‘… followed discussions on what role the media played in the post election period…’.

Really? I do not speak nor understand any of the languages of the 42 officially recognised ethnic groups in Kenya. My understanding of the more widely spoken National language, Kiswahili, is still very much ‘kidogo kidogo’ (i.e. little), yet I am acutely aware of the crass hostilities between different communities, charges of ethnic discrimination and allegations of ethnic monopoly of this or that by one group or the other. So which media is poisoning my mind?

The Kenya ruling elite have been quite successful, until recently, in living in grand denial about the injustices, social, economic and political that have made them one of the most prosperous middle classes in Africa but also one of the most unequal societies in the world. The tragic violence on the back of the disputed elections finally punctured deep holes in this class/crass delusion.

Even a casual familiarity with Kenya’s colonial and post colonial history will reveal the extreme violence perpetrated by the British, well thought to the independence elite who perfected their rule through the same divide and conquer of the British and turned Uhuru (independence) into a permanent burden to the masses. Yet somehow the elite swallowed their own propaganda that Kenya is an oasis of peace and stability. They took comfort in the disintegration of their neighbours and somehow believe that civil wars, genocide, military coups, economic meltdown, etc were things that happen to their neighbours, not in Kenya, the country known internationally as the destination of all exotic safari complacent to the tune of ‘Kenya Yetu, Hakuna Matata’!

The decades of violence from independence including ethnic clashes, ethnic cleansing and high level unsolved political murders were minor details conveniently airbrushed from the official self image of the country, until December 2007.

Now that the ideologically manufactured innocence has finally been exposed the rulers are looking for scapegoats for the troubled paradise, a paradise that has always excluded the majority of its peoples whatever their ethnicity, religion or race.

By making the media broadcasting in indigenous languages the enemy the political elite is only showing itself up as the local settler colonial masters that they have always been. In that colonial mindset the majority of the people, their culture, traditions and their languages become objects of attack and persecution.

The colonialists justified their predatory adventures, oppression and exploitation of the colonised as ‘white man’s burden’ to bring civilisation and God to the natives. The post colonial elite continues the same attack on their own peoples in the name of modernisation which culturally translates as westernisation and uncritically aping the language and cultures of wazungu (Europeans) . That’s why our indigenous languages are referred to as ‘vernacular’ and our children are made to feel ashamed of speaking their mother tongues at school and even punished for speaking them!

The current attack on indigenous language media in Kenya is not unique to Kenya. It is not limited to the media but wholesale attack on Africaness. It takes different forms in many other countries but relentless, all the same.

It is not just about freedom of expression but part of a long attack on the mind of the masses that must be resisted. The English language media are no less guilty of xenophobia, ethnic hatred or distortions, misrepresentation or disinformation. So why pick on the indigenous language stations? Is it because English phobias and ideological biases are preferable to indigenous ones?

In the UK, the Welsh are proud to use their local language and insist on having signposts in Wales in Welsh and have mandatory broadcast in their language. In Britain in general ethnic minorities are not ashamed to reclaim and retain their culture including their languages while being part of a vibrant multi cultural society.

And yet in Kenya the politicians want to legislate against ethnic media! Just imagine the ridiculousness of it all. A kikuyu, Luo, Luhya or any of the numerous diaspora of Kenyan communities in the UK can establish a radio station or any other media in their mother tongue, sometimes even with government support but back home in Kenya, if the politicians have their way, such endeavour would be criminalised!

I am very much aware of the role which the media especially radio (which is still the most influential media across Africa because it is virtually accessible to everyone) can play both negatively and positively in our societies. Radio Mille Coline in Rwanda was both orchestrator and perpetrator for genocidaire elements and genocide. But the solution in post genocide Rwanda was not to ban Radio in Kiyarwanda but to change the laws, criminalise hatred broadcast and publications and reorient the content of programmes in a wider public education programme of continuous fight against the ideology from which genocide springs.

The state should make laws that protect the whole of society and be willing to sanction those who violate them whether in the media or politicians or academics instead of blaming indigenous languages. In blaming the language rather than those who instigate these sentiments Kenyan politicians are behaving like the proverbial ostrich man in the Yoruba saying : O fi ete sile on pa lapa lapa (i.e. someone who is suffering from leprosy is busy seeking medicines for eczema!).

*Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem writes this column as a Pan Africanist.

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

Libyan leader Moammar Gadaffi accused a "corrupt" government of failing to manage the country's oil wealth and ordered it to hand out oil money directly to the country's five million people. Western diplomats said the call, late on Wednesday, appeared aimed at putting pressure on the government to speed up reforms to improve the living standard of the population at a time of soaring oil revenues.

On Saturday, April 11th, a little past 3 p.m., a MINUSTAH (UN) soldier, Nigerian Cpl. Nagya Aminu, was shot and killed in downtown Port-au-Prince. While this killing was widely reported in the international media, what followed the killing was not. In the immediate aftermath of the killing, at approximately 3:30 p.m. that same afternoon, MINUSTAH troops launched a massive assault on Haitian vendors at the open-air sidewalk market near the main Cathedral in downtown Port-au-Prince—the area where the soldier had been killed.

Bill Fletcher looks at the hypocrisy surrounding the United States' misadventures into Somalia.

Bush’s so-called war against terrorism entered a further, cynical stage with the recent classification of a Somali group as alleged ‘terrorists’. Al Shabab, the military wing of the Union of Islamic Courts, was declared by the US State Department to be a terrorist organisation. The Bush administration claims that ‘some’ members of Al Shabab are affiliated with Al Qaeda.

In order to understand the cynicism of this move it is important to remember that Somalia was a basket case for over a decade after the overthrow of the dictator Siad Barre. Filled with clan-based warlords, the country had no stable government. An international attempt to forge a transitional national government resulted in no further stability or end to the violence. The rise of a right-wing Islamist group known as the Union of Islamic Courts, however, brought about a period of relative stability and internal peace. While the group was and is ultra-conservative in many of its tenets, it was successful in crushing or co-opting many of the warlords. Further, it was an indigenous group to Somalia and not an arm of another country or an external social movement.

Using the pretext of an alleged - and unproven - connection between the Union of Islamic Courts and Al Qaeda, Ethiopian troops - encouraged and backed by the Bush administration - invaded Somalia in 2006 with the stated objective of supporting the Transitional Federal Government, an institution that was on its last legs and had little support within the population. Although the Ethiopians defeated the UIC in formal battle, the situation in Somalia devolved into guerrilla war and chaos. It has been going downhill ever since.

Al Shabab, whether one supports them or not, is an armed resistance movement. It has been carrying out military actions against troops of the country that invaded Somalia. One does not have to support the UIC or the actions of Al Shabab to recognise that a people have a right to oust those who invade their land.

The Bush administration’s action in classifying Al Shabab as ‘terrorists’ further complicates an already difficult situation. Instead of recognising that Al Shabab is the military wing of a legitimate movement, classifying them as alleged terrorists makes efforts towards a political resolution of the conflict unlikely, if not nearly impossible, just as has happened in Iraq. One does not have to like Al Shabab, or agree with its objectives, as long as it can be demonstrated on the ground that it is a movement that has a real constituency and is militarily confronting an occupying army.

The Bush administration, as it has done in other parts of the world, e.g. in Turkey with the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), or in the Philippines with the Communist Party of the Philippines (and their New People’s Army), selectively chooses when to classify an insurgency or resistance as terrorists, based almost solely according to whether the target of the insurgency/resistance is a friend of the Bush administration. In the case of Somalia, the Ethiopians are doing the bidding of the Bush administration as well as serving their own regional ambitions.

There is another piece to this which is worth noting. Throwing around the label of ‘terrorist’ is also aimed at suppressing dissent here at home in the USA. Whether one is a Somali émigré, Somali American, or simply someone who supports Somalia’s right to national self-determination, the label of terrorist has a chilling effect on one’s willingness to speak out. As witnessed during the Cold War with the manner in which the charge of ‘communist sympathiser’ was used to suppress dissent, the suggestion that someone is either soft on terrorism or, worse, aiding and abetting an alleged terrorist group shuts down all reasonable discussion.

So, let’s be clear: the Bush administration is not interested in reasonable discussion. We, however, should be, so we need to push back against this latest outrage.

*Bill Fletcher Jr. is executive editor of The Black Commentator where this article first appeared [www.blackcommentator.com">. He is also a senior scholar with the Institute for Policy Studies and the immediate past president of TransAfrica Forum.

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

The Darfuri Leaders Network, a broad-based alliance representing Darfuri diaspora organizations across the U.S., today urged members of the U.N. Security Council to address the ongoing violence and humanitarian crisis in Darfur during an upcoming special session of the council this week.

Kuwe nakaThabo,

Siyakubulisa ngesihle samakhosikazi ngolimi lwethu!

Siloba lincwadi singabomama besizwe seZimbabwe esibhekane lokuhlukuluzeka sidinga uncedo kubomakhelwane.

Ngomgqibelo mhlaka 12 April umntanakho uThabo wezakuleli eleZimbabwe ezoxoxisana loRobert Mugabe. Kasazi ukuthi baxoxisana ngani ngakho ke asisoze sigxile kungxoxo yabo ngoba singayazi njalo lesizatho singasazi ukuthi kungani uThabo waphoqelela wedlula kuleli. Kodwa sizakhuluma ngamazwi aphoswa nguThabo esuka kuleli wathi "inkinga, ziphi inkinga." Lamazwi asicaphula ngakho sicela umkhuze, umbuyise ebuntwini uThabo.

IZimbabwe ibhekane lobunzima lenkinga kwezomnotho, kwezombusazwe, kanye lokungahlaliseki nje jikelele. Kasenelisi njengabomama ukunakekela abantwabethu sibanike ukudla kathathu ngelanga, ukuthola ukudla kunzima konke lokhu uThabo ukutshaya indiva.

Ukhetho esisuka kulo lwengeze ngamandla ukuhlupheka kithi lanxa ukhetho lwaqhutshwa ngokuthula sihlukuluzekile engqondweni ngokwala kukaRobert ukuthi impumelo kamongameli yaziswe uzulu.

Abantu asihlalisekanga ngani ngoba isibalo samapholisa sesandile ezigabeni ikhulukazi emaphandleni lokhu kusenza sidlele evalweni.

NakaThabo siyacela ngesisa umkhuze uThabo ngaloludaba umtshele axwaye ukukhuluma engahluzanga emazwi akhe, asuke asicasule kakhulu. Sicela umkhuze singakamkhuzi thina. Untinte umfazi, untinte imbokodo. Tshela uThabo ame acabange abesekhuluma engabozilulaza phakathi kwamanye amadoda.

Yithi omakhelwane

Women Of Zimbabwe Arise (WOZA)

Loosely translated into English

Dear Mother of Thabo, We greet you in the name of sisterhood and in our mother tongue (isindebele)!

We are writing to you as mother of the suffering masses of Zimbabwe to ask for your help.

On Saturday 12 April 2008, your child Thabo Mbeki came to Zimbabwe to meet Robert Mugabe. We don't know what they discussed or the real reason he came to Zimbabwe so we cannot comment about that but we want to comment about the words he used when he was leaving.

He said, "There is no crisis in Zimbabwe. We find this has provoked us. Please correct him.

Zimbabwe is in an economic, political and social crisis. We cannot afford three meals a day or even find the basic commodities to feed our children. The political crisis has been worsened by the recent election. Although the election day was peaceful we have been annoyed by the refusal of Mugabe to release presidential results. Socailly the amount of police around the streets and in our rural areas make life very tense.

NaThabo please correct you son about these issues and tell him to refrain from hisrespecting us by his comments.

Please discipline him before we have to do so.

Your neighbours, Women of Zimbabwe Arise (WOZA)

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

Agustin Velloso advices those interested in plotting a coup in Equatorial Guinea "to choose one's travel companions for a coup d'état with care."

Starting April 1st, 2008, Lufthansa offers 295 seats, three times a week, in a superb Airbus for anyone wanting to travel from Frankfurt to Malabo, Equatorial Guinea's capital city. It now seems incredible that in the 90's only Iberia flew to Malabo, from Madrid on Sunday morning, and back the same evening with a group of civil servants, a bunch of nuns and priests plus some Equatorial Guinea nationals.

This new connection between Equatorial Guinea and the rest of the world beyond its closest African neighbors, joins those of Air France, Swiss International Air Lines, Royal Air Maroc, KLM, Spainair, Sonair, Jet Air and some others. Even flights from unspecified airports in Europe with airlines which are not IATA members - although they advertise as such- can be found on the Internet.

The airlines tell the public this intense activity is due to growing business opportunities and changes taking place in the African country: "Blessed by a growing economy in recent years, the country maintains numerous international trade relations, principally in the energy sector."

THREE MEN AND A HELICOPTER

However, seasoned travellers do not agree on this point. Simon Mann, a British mercenary once told the UK's television Channel 4 that "things were very bad" in Equatorial Guinea and that "regime change was badly needed". He added that "the regime was stumbling, the State was sinking" (http://www.asodegue.org/marzo1208.htm).

Mann is the model of the English gentleman. He studied in Eton, the world's most elitist school, cradle of renowned travellers since its foundation in 1440. After graduating he spent the next 30 years travelling the world together with other gunmen, shooting to order or off his own bat in order to make money. His last trip for that purpose, began in South Africa in 2004 and has landed him in Malabo's Black Beach jail, where he has just been imprisoned after being jailed for a time in Zimbabwe.

Many people learn at school that travelling is the best way to learn. Mann has certainly changed his opinions. A mere week at his Black Beach prison cell has led him to abandon his former negative image of Equatorial Guinea and to declare the country "has experienced an incredible change in four years".

On the same day in Madrid, where he lives as a Geneva Convention refugee, Severo Moto, president of Equatorial Guinea's government in exile, said the opposite : "I am coming back home!" in order to bring freedom and democracy to the country. (http://www.guinea-ecuatorial.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid…)

Moto's travelling experience is the opposite of Mann's. The more he travels the world the further he gets from Equatorial Guinea. Seeking all kinds of support for his political return home, he has been to many different places. But none of them has taken him even half way to his apparent destination. What is worse, he has come close to losing both his life and his refugee status in Spain.

Mann and Moto are not alone in their plight. Since 2004, after a life of travel for pleasure, one of their main supporters, Mark Thatcher, son of former British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, has some difficulty leaving Britain. Many countries refuse to grant him a visa precisely for his past involvement in adventures that were too big for him. How come his partners failed to notice that this true wet blanket has failed in virtually all the sports, business and financial projects he has undertaken?

Mann now complains that Moto and Ely Calil, another financial backer, cheated him. Thatcher says he thought the helicopter he rented for their botched plan, was meant to serve as an ambulance. Moto says he knows nothing at all about Mann's coup d'état. Calil, who made his fortune in the oil business, has left his fancy residence in London's Chelsea. His current whereabouts are unknown.

NOTIONAL COUPS, NOTIONAL OPPOSITION

The only clear thing emerging from this Marx Brothers remake is the advisability of choosing one's travel companions for a coup d'état with care. Opposition leaders inside the country know this all too well. That means cultivating relations with the most important foreign centres of political power. In other words: travelling from Malabo to the United States and European Union capitals.

Unfortunately, despite frequent invitations for these leaders to visit powerful countries with leverage over Equatorial Guinea, their visits have not borne fruit. On the eve of legislative elections due next May in Equatorial Guinea, Convergencia Para la Democracia Social (CPDS), an opposition party founded underground in 1990, today has two representatives in the national congress. The remaining 98 seats are held by supporters of Teodoro Obiang, President without a break since 1979.

One might say that the important thing is not the number of trips, but their quality. Up until now, it seems that CPDS secretary general, Placido Mico, has yet to learn what Moto knows: world governments are far more interested in Equatorial Guinea's oil than in its people's human rights. All those foreign trips have not taught Mico what Obiang and any other dictator who leans on US friendship knows: so long as they obey imperial policies, they will stay in power, unless their own people bring them down.

Mico never tires of declaring in every city he visits that CPDS "is a political party aiming to introduce changes in Equatorial Guinea once it gets power, which it will acquire by democratic means. For this, it works peacefully for the establishment of a democratic regime in Equatorial Guinea". It may seem incredible, but he adds that he is confident that the United States government may change its current policies towards Equatorial Guinea (http://cpds-gq.org/laverdad56/opinion3.html).

This and similar statements are sweet music to Obiang and the world leaders who support him. So they are more than happy to pay for Mico's air tickets and travel expenses. The Equatorial Guinea opposition leader gives them no trouble and above all guarantees that their corporations increasing investments and business in this small oil-rich African country are safe. Furthermore, this heavenly status quo means they can meet with Mico openly. So in the unlikely event that domestic public opinion questions Equatorial Guinea's lack of democracy, they can say they are doing their share to support it.

TYRANNY - GOOD FOR BUSINESS

No wonder more and more airlines are offering new connections to Malabo. International entrepeneurs have realised, as politicians have, that their businesses are not in peril with the current government or any other likely to succeed it. Such security does not apply to Equatorial Guinea's people, whose human rights are violated on a daily basis. It seems corporation CEOs do not get news about Obiang's policemen chasing after opposition leaders and sometimes torturing them to death. They also seem not to know that business is the preserve of the elite, that democracy is just a dream for the majority of the population either at home or in exile. (http://thereport.amnesty.org/eng/Regions/Africa/Equatorial-Guinea)

One learned observer of Equatorial Guinea who, oddly enough, does not travel there, explained last March 17 why businessmen choose this country for their activities:

"We have heard many times during the last years that Equatorial Guinea is changing. The truth is that real development has not taken place. What exists is an enormous development of Obiang's entourage's enterprises. These have made them incredibly rich while the majority of the population remains poor." (http://www.asodegue.org/marzo1708.htm)

He adds: "news coming from different parts of the country speak of little enthusiasm amongst the people entitled to register for the elections. They are tired of the same people governing all the time, no matter who the citizens vote for. Some reports also inform of irregularities." (http://www.asodegue.org/febrero01081.htm)

TRAVEL - THE GREAT EDUCATOR

In the meantime Obiang himself and his family also travel to Europe and the United States. On arrival he is greeted with flattery. In the April 12, 2006 press conference by United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, she said: "thank you very much for your presence here. You are a good friend and we welcome you." (http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2006/64434.htm)

From time to time Obiang has to listen to "recommendations" and "suggestions" about governance and human rights on his trips abroad, but his bank accounts and properties keep on growing anyway. Neither do the admonitions affect the income of Western companies operating in Equatorial Guinea.

When criticism cuts him to the quick, he fights back and speaks his mind. He is right. Why the half-hearted criticism at the same time as they openly flatter him? This helps explain Obiang's growing interest in China: a country he has visited five times in the last few years. (http://www.embajadachina.org.mx/esp/xw/t217927.htm)

Obiang's trips to Europe and the United States, generate new ones in their turn, from Western Prime Ministers and Foreign Affairs Ministers, from other high government officials and from big corporation CEOs. If two sandals and an ass were all it took Herodotus to write impressive reports of the political and social events he witnessed in his travels, what will these people write from their first class seats in an Airbus A330-300, equipped with "two meter long beds, wine cellar, 5-star chef, musical classics and video"? (www.lufthansa.com)

Back home, after a two or three day visit to Equatorial Guinea, they declare the country has made important steps towards democracy, that the political situation has vastly improved, and last but not least, praise the outstanding environment for foreign investment. That is why people say travel broadens the mind. Maybe when Western airlines start giving seats to the thousands of people from Equatorial Guinea who have never flown with them, those people too will at last see the wonders of Equatorial Guinea so fulsomely described by foreign politicians and businessmen.

Moral: increase international air connections with Equatorial Guinea.

*Agustín Velloso is Professor of Education Sciences at the National University of Education in Madrid. This English version of the article was revised by toni solo.

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

Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem looks at Zimbabwe's ZANU-PF and MDC and asks whether the Zimbabwean people are being truly represented in the winds of change

I have to begin this week’s column with an open apology to a dear brother and comrade, Thomas Deve. He was one of the ‘original politburo’ of seven  idealistic young men (unfortunately  we were all men) who masterminded the organising of the 7th Pan African Congress in Kampala in 1994. The others were Napoleon Abdulai, Col. Serwanga Lwanga,  Major Ondogo ori  Amaza, Brig. Noble Mayombo Rwaboni and Myself. Our chairman was then Col. Otafiire (now Major-General, who was really  ‘utter fire’ in those days).

Sadly, of the four Ugandans in this team only one person (Otafiire) is alive today. By a coincidence all the other three non Ugandans have ended in the UN system! Is the UN where Pan Africanists retreat or resign to? The answer (s) will have to wait another time. In spite of changing trajectories we remain close both personally and politically. We generally hold similar views on political developments based on our shared political and ideological values and orientation. Most of the time none of us needed to do double checks to know where ‘the correct political line’ is. 

However twice now I have disagreed with Thomas’ judgement and twice I have had to recant. Both had to do with Zimbabwe. In 2000 I was part of the CDD delegation led by former President of Liberia, Prof Amos Sawyer, that the government of Zimbabwe had allowed to monitor the referendum. In several conversations with CSOs, National Constituent Assembly advocates, academics, journalists, opposition and government spokespersons and partisans the general conclusion was that ‘there was no way’ ZANU-PF was going to allow MDC and its allies to win the referendum. Even Morgan Tsvangirai was convinced that ‘Mugabe will not allow it’ and expressed doubts that if they won h Mugabe would put all of them in jail! 

Thomas Deve was the only one among all the people we officially interviewed who told us categorically that ZANU-PF/Mugabe was going to lose the referendum. I thought my comrade had been talking too much to disgruntled city dwellers and was taking the chattering classes for the masses. Off I went to Masvingo region where I was convinced that the rural masses as in other areas will troop out and vote for ZANU-Pf and dwarf the urban guerrilla movement of the MDC and angry CSOs. Was I not wrong?  The masses in the rural areas voted with their feet and the urban warriors were triumphant. At an African Association of Political Science (AAPS) and SARIPS  public Public Forum at Hotel Monomapata the day the result was released I had expressed my fears about the future of the country because the opposition was not prepared for Victory and the government had not been prepared for defeat. Both bore bad omen.  ZANU-PF went ahead to controversially ‘win’ the election the following year and the subsequent and has held on to power since then.

Come 2008 elections I and many other pundits repeated our ‘Mugabe will never allow the opposition to win’ mantra. He swore so himself openly. In case the world was deaf of hearing Army Commanders, Head of Police and other Security goons let it be known that they were not willing to salute a president who was not part of the Liberation war. Pity all those Zimbabweans  (demographically a majority of the population!)who missed out on the CHHIMURENGAs by being born too late. We had many discussions with Thomas and he insisted that there was  not going to be an outright winner and predicted a run off. I thought that Mugabe would not risk the humiliation of a run off.

Needless to say that Thomas was right again. How could we all have got it wrong? Could it because we have been so saturated with the 7days/24 hours highly biased reports on Zimbabwe and Mugabe that we have resigned ourselves to the devilish regime using all kinds of tricks to continue to hold on to power? One of the weaknesses of this politics of demonisation is that one becomes wedded to the doomsday scenario. Another is that we undermine and under estimate the creeping power of resistance and incremental democratic gains of the people of Zimbabwe. Even the opposition underplays its own victories (such as the reforms of the electoral processes) in order to have Mugabe permanently roasted in the court of public opinion especially in its constant pandering to Western audiences. The possibility of its victory was talked down in favour of a flawed process producing a flawed outcome . 

As in 2000 we were preparing for outright rigging by ZANU-PF which did not materialise.  Even when the much predicted violence did not happen we were still fearing it was only delayed. The Western Media and cynical reflexes about flawed elections across the continent had prepared our minds for rigging but the parliamentary results showed otherwise. The opposition’s victory then meant we had to change the script because of the potential contradiction of accepting  the parliamentary result and denying  the presidential result.

There is wrong comparison with what seemed a similar situation with the recent ‘top up’ rigging in Kenya but the real parallel is probably MKO Abiola’s denied June 12 1992 mandate  in Nigeria. In Kenya the conclusion of many independent observers has been that it was impossible to say with all certainty who had won the presidential election.  

In 1992 the Prodemocracy forces were able to unofficially publish Abiola’s result because of the ‘open secret’ ballot system that limited every polling station to a maximum of 500 voters and the requirement that each voter lined up behind their candidate’s poster and the certification of the result by all present.

It was possible to know who won by tallying the result from all polling stations which in Zimbabwe (for the first time) were required to be publicly displayed after counting. So no problem of we cannot find our returning officers as the Chairman of Kenya’s discredited Electoral Commission infamously claimed.

It now seems that in Zimbabwe the possible margin of error could swing either way. Even the MDC had only claimed it had barely met the 51% requirement. And ZANU-PF’s figures already conceded that they have not met the requirement by a few percentages. Strangely ZANU-PF had called for a rerun even before the official result is announced while the MDC now claims that it has ‘won’ and therefore there is no need for a rerun.

Is the MDC not falling into the trap of ZANU-PF and Mugabe? Are we not seeing a repeat of the referendum vote here where ZANU PF saw their defeat as a wake up call to clobber the populace into line by the time of the General elections.

Is it not clear that they are preparing for the rerun while the opposition is shuttling between the court and diplomatic capitals? I am not quite sure if the MDC will achieve anything by choosing this course. Why can’t they just go for the rerun and humiliate the Old man? 

It is to Thomas who has now earned his status as the ‘authentic guru’ that I turn for some homely clarity. His view is that the opposition may be more vulnerable  than everyone is predicting if there is a run off. If the rerun were to go against MDC what are we going to say? The only ‘solution’ we have been prepared for is Mugabe losing. One Member of the European Commission even suggested that  the EU and the rest of the international community (often used to mean EU and USA!) should recognize the result as declared by MDC. Where were they when Abiola was jailed for no other crime than winning an election? What implication does this type of ‘help’ have for the legitimacy of our institutions? 

Yes something needs to be done but what, by whom and when? And how? God knows that Mugabe is no longer part of the solution but central to problem but should he go simply because the West want him out? Should he also be holding the country to ransome in the name of defying the west even if the country is ruined? When would patriotic Zimbabweans both inside the ZANU-PF/MDC and those outside both parties say enough is enough.

How democratic is it that we hold elections with only particular outcomes in mind? Do elections ion themselves solve socio-economic and political problems Or they just reflect them? Were Hitler and Mussolini not elected? 

Instead of looking at ZANU or MDC victory is it not possible to conclude that Zimbabweans like Kenyans are tired of winner takes all politics by not giving overwhelming mandate to either the tired gerontocrat or his prodigal sons and daughters in the MDC?

Before you start following the Afropessimists’ please reflect that Kenya, Zimbabwe or Nigeria and their controversial Elections are not the only way . Botswana just had a transition from one president (voluntarily retiring one year before his term) and giving way to another without any fuss. It was so normal to the people of Botswana that it did not even make much news. 

Is Mugabe revolutionary enough to liberate himself from power and national suicide and bow out even at this late stage with some dignity or he will wait to be humiliated whatever the outcome of the result?

From Nigeria through Kenya  and now passing through Zimbabwe it is now clear that elections in themselves, important they may be, are not as decisive as the power to ‘announce’ the official result. How can we guarantee the integrity of this all powerful messenger? 

*Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem writes this column as a Pan Africanist.

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

Steve Ouma argues that for the promised social transformation in Kenya to take root, "political class and other parochial interests" have to give way to consensus and truth telling.

The jubilations that followed the announcement of the Grand Coalition cabinet on April, 13, 2008 were expected. In the lips of most Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) supporters the talk was “at least now we shall also share in the National cake” and perhaps not just as “passengers” in government but real actors. Evoking the classical argument of legal theorist Bruce Ackerman, some analysts have argued that Kenya has been in a constitutional moment since the outbreak of the post 2007 election violent protests. My reading is that most of these commentators have not made a full reading of Bruce’s argument- and if they have, then their interpretation of the text is a little off the mark. Bruce argues that constitutional democracy in the United States has evolved along two distinct tracks of lawmaking. One track is that of “normal politics,” the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government make decisions on behalf of citizens in the absence of high levels of citizen engagement. The second track is what he refers to as the “constitutional moments” These are times characterized by sustained citizen engagement and mobilization and demand for social transformation. This track is therefore one of “higher” lawmaking enterprises.

During these constitutional moments, the people themselves assert their supremacy, and demand sweeping changes in the structure of constitutional democracy. When American democracy has functioned on this second, “higher track” of lawmaking -- as when the constitution itself was framed, when the country emerged from its civil war and brought an end to slavery, and when the federal government dramatically expanded its intervention in the national economy during the New Deal of the 1930’s – governing institutions were fundamentally reshaped.

By all measure, the Prime Minister Raila Odinga’s and President Kibaki’s hand shake and the subsequent deal, legal and constitutional changes have not generated such heights. In the recent history though, when Kenya experienced constitutional moments was the case during the 2002 elections and at the National Constitutional Conference held at Bomas of Kenya (popularly referred to as the Bomas conference). Before the conference, Prof. Yash Pal Ghai’s Commission had gone round the country listening to the people. After many years of misrule and oppression Kenyans used the Ghai hearing sessions as moments of reviewing their past and defining the future. Through Ghai and his team they demanded a presidency that did not replicate a god; one who was not above the law or omniscient. As, Barth (2005), notes the Kenyan president is like a Greek god- pompous in benevolence, and lethal in malevolence. On the super-centralized government framework, Kenyans lamented that they work so hard deep in their villages, and generously give unto “Caesar” through exorbitant taxes, but have no say on how “Caesar” shares out the national cake. For this reason they demanded to be allowed to participate more prominently in the way they are governed, and the way their resources should be shared. One cannot side step these moments simply because there was no violence associated with them. These were constitutional moments.

After the 2002 National Rainbow Coalition (NARC) velvet revolution, the clarion call “yote yawezekana bila Moi”( all is possible without Moi), was all over the air and there was increased vigilance by the citizens. In assertion of their supremacy, citizens arrested police caught extorting bribe. Workers in the Export processing Zones took to the streets in March 2003, to claim better wages, collective bargain agreement and justice relation in production. And most important, there was pressure on the NARC administration to fast tract the constitutional reforms- which in their pre-elections pledge, they had promised to do in 100 days. When Bomas re-opened, the debate was robust and unstoppable. Kenyans wanted wide sweeping changes in the structure our constitutional democracy.

The struggle was so intense that it finally polarized the country at the referendum. While there were other issues on which the “NO” and “YES” side differed and put forward passionate arguments amidst propaganda and mudslinging (which are common in vote-wooing campaigns), the subject of the executive and devolution of power was the real water shade. Evidently, most Kenyans wanted and still want a less powerful executive. These were constitutional moments which simply lacked a midwife. It is the frustration and abortion of these moments that created the recipe to the Post December violence pushing t the Country to its death bed.

Kenyans therefore know what they want and have defined it rather well during the 2002 and 2003 “constitutional moments”. These moments have been frustrated by the political class and other parochial interests. It must be in realization of this fact that the president quipped while making his contribution in parliament on the National Accord and Reconciliation Bill 2008 that “even Orengo alone can now write the Constitution”.

With this clarification, what Kenya is going through now can best be described as a moment of liminality. The theorist, Victor Turner (1922-83), introduced this concept in his famous essay “Betwixt and between; the liminal Period in the Rites-de- passage”. His thesis was focused on rites of passage and more so initiation. Turner regarded rites of passage and in particular initiation ritual, as a process of transformation whereby a person moves from one defined state to another, with an intervening period of uncertainty and crisis. It is this state of crisis- liminal stage – that is the focus of the ritual, which seeks to control it and to impose the values of the society upon the wavering individual who for a short but critical period, is in a “gap”. In this “gap” between social status, neither the old nor the new rules apply and the individual is compelled by the society to reflect on her situation, her place in the society and indeed the existence of the society as such.

Going back to the 18th March parliamentary debate ,perhaps this state of Kenya’s liminality was best captured by the Hon. Minister for Justice and Constitutional affairs who in her contribution reminded Members of parliament that the amendments the National Accord and Reconciliation Bill sought to make to the Constitution “is temporary, pending the full review of the Constitution.” The Country is therefore between the new and the old legal order, between authoritarian presidency and another centre of power, between a presidential democracy and parliamentary democracy, between an open and a closed society. One must also recall that the National dialogue Committee is still in session and its Chief mediator, Mr Oluyemi Adeniji, was in the parliamentary gallery on 18th March. What the Committee has been doing is to assist Kenya to reflect on her situation, her place as a member of regional and international community and indeed her own national identity.

The liminal period is also the state of truth telling. Within Victor’s analysis of initiation, it is during their period that the individual is taken through the rigor of community secrets and is invited to understand the truth about the community. Kenya intend to start two truth telling process. One shall be under way soon and that is the Independent Review Committee (IREC) whose mandate is to probe the presidential election fiasco that plunged the country into crisis. The other shall be the Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commission. The common objective of the two parallel teams is to define the elusive truth. This shall be the most trying moment as truth is ultimately a matter of socially and historically conditioned agreement. This means that what the various parties may see as facts, may well depend on their vantage point of seeing the world.

It is only when this consensus is attained that the country shall move on towards the social transformation that we have been yearning for and create a new moral code and national physique. This new Kenya must be reflected in the new constitution whose time line has now been given as twelve months. Liminality is a creative and critical state of being, it is how best all Kenyan stride through it that shall determine our reintegration amongst ourselves and with the international citizenry.

*Steve Ouma is based at the Faculty of Arts, University of Western Cape, South Africa.

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

The newly elected chair-person of the South-African based Zimbabwe Diaspora Forum, Mr Solomon Chikowero, has urged Zimbabweans based in South-Africa to remain resilient in the face of many challenges confronting them in the country.

Chikowero urged Zimbabweans based in South-Africa to unite and press for democratic reforms in Zimbabwe that will enable an environment that fosters stability to ensure a peaceful transition and reconstruction, for them to be able to go back home.

"Many of us are here for economic and political reasons, for as long as these remain unresolved then we are going to remain in foreign lands forever. We want to go home. The harmonised election on March 29 offered an opportunity for the resolution of the Zimbabwean crisis, but it seems as though the Robert Mugabe regime will stop at nothing to disregard the people's will. No solution that does not respect the will of the people will be sustainable."

Chikowero urged Zimbabweans based in South-Africa to come out in their hundreds for a demonstration to be held on Wednesday the 16th of April, to press for a lasting solution on the Zimbabwean situation. South-Africa's President Thabo Mbeki at the weekend declared that there was no crisis in Zimbabwe.

"We know there is a crisis in Zimbabwe, that is one of a ruling elite that refuses to accept that the people rejected it at the polls. We know who won in the elections, we demand that the results be made public for all without any further delays."

*Please note that the logistics and mobilisation will be handled by ZDF affiliates the Zimbabwe Revolutionary Youth Movement and the Zimbabwe Exiles Forum - Demonstrators will start gathering at 10.AM. For more information, please contact, Sox Chikhohwero Chair-person of the ZDF at 27 72 238 9192 or Simon Mudekwa at 0796192955.

Sheldon Drobny looks at the close relationship between Bill Gates' philanthropy and tax-exemption and argues that the "great problems of the world today are a direct result of the wide disparity between the rich and poor."

My background is finance and accounting. As a socially conscious venture capitalist and philanthropist, I have a very good understanding of wealth management and philanthropy. I started my career in 1967 with the IRS as a specialist in taxation covering many areas of the tax law including the so-called legal loopholes to charitable giving. I have known for years that a smart wealthy person could keep control of all his assets without estate or income taxes through cleverly structured charitable foundations. These foundations are perfectly legal and allow the donors to keep absolute control of all their money and power and accumulate enormous appreciation free of taxation. In 1967, the loopholes were outrageous and the law has tightened some of these tactics for the rich. However, the Gates Buffet foundation grant is nothing more than a shell game in which control of assets for both Gates and Buffet remain the same.

The only difference is that the accumulation of wealth by these two will be much more massive because they will no longer have to pay any taxes.

The Gates Foundation now has about $60 Billion under the control of the wealthiest people in America. They do not have to sell any of their positions in the stocks that they put under the tax-exempt umbrella. Furthermore, they can vote their stock holdings the same as if they did before and they can make the same investment decisions about their considerable corporate holdings. Both Buffet and Gates exhibited the most predatory capitalistic practices as corporate executives and investors. Microsoft and Berkshire Hathaway are not models of socially responsible capitalism. That being said, this foundation will be in the long run richer than the Catholic Church, which has accumulated wealth and power for over 1500 years. However, the results will be exactly the same. They will never liquidate enough of their assets to do any real good for the most onerous problem we have as humans; the worldwide poverty that is caused by the great disparity between the haves and the have-nots.

The Gates Foundation and the Catholic Church have the same goals. They are to keep the legacies for which they were created. For Bill Gates and Warren Buffet it is the control and legacy of family wealth as in the ancient days of the Pharos of Egypt. And by not paying any taxes, Gates will be more powerful than the Pope. I realize that this foundation has done more for disease research and education than any single government institution. But, that is just a condemnation of how little rich countries do for the less fortunate. And the United States is one of the worst examples of how little it does for its own people.

The great problems of the world today are a direct result of the wide disparity between the rich and poor. But, it is hard for the wealthiest to even look at this as an issue of most importance. Catholic Charities do a lot for the poor and I am sure that the Gates Foundation will do a lot for diseases of the poor. But, that is merely a band-aid for one of the symptoms of poverty. The real issue today is poverty.

The governments that keep their people in abject poverty while their leaders are obscenely rich from oil revenues cause many of the problems in the Middle East. But, even the poorest of their people now have access to satellite TV and Internet information that shows these people how much they are being exploited. The simple answer that they hate us for our freedom is absurd. They hate us because they see the wealthy and powerful as the cause of their suffering. As was the case in Germany in the 1920s, even a cultured society can succumb to irrationally violent leaders if they are hungry and poor. It is a human problem that we saw occur in a 1st world country. The 1968 movie, The Shoes of the Fisherman {1} was a fictional account of a new Pope who had the conscience to solve world poverty by giving away all the Church's assets. Below is a summary of the plot from

“After twenty years in a Siberian labor camp, Kiril Lakota, the Metropolitan Archbishop of Lvov, is set free. The Catholic Archbishop is released and sent to Rome, where the ailing Pope makes him a Cardinal. The world is in a state of crisis - a famine in China is exacerbated by United States restrictions on Chinese trade and the ongoing Chinese-Soviet feud. When the Pontiff dies, Lakota finds himself elected Pope. But the new Pope Kiril I is plagued by self-doubt, by his years in prison, and by the strange world he knows so little about. This movie contains extensive information about Catholic faith & practice, as a television news reporter steps in from time-to-time to explain the procedures involved in selecting a new Pope.”

The movie was not great but it did emphasize the point I am making in this piece. Unless wealthy people and governments around the world recognize the threat that poverty has on humanity, our chances of survival are markedly decreased. And unless the major wealth of the world is used to help feed its people, the diseases caused by poverty will never be cured. The prevention of diseases, both physical and mental, caused by hunger and poverty are the real dangers we face. And with all the concentrated wealth, we have the capacity to give everyone enough to survive and still leave the wealthy with plenty of luxuries. If Bill Gates gave $29 Billion away and kept only $1 Billion he would still have a wonderful life. If he gave it to Sally Struthers, she could probably feed the world.

*Sheldon Drobny was the co-founder of Air America Radio. He is also the Chairman and Managing Director of Paradigm Group II, a venture capital firm specializing in socially responsible businesses. This article first appeared in Common Dreams (www.commondreams.org) in August, 2006

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

I first arrived in Zimbabwe in the mid 90s as a young, naïve university student, curious and open to all that the world had to offer. And at that time, Zimbabwe offered quite a lot - a strong economy based on formidable exports, a literacy rate unmatched by other nations in the region, and people who were proud and welcoming, who had dreams for themselves and their families.

Over a decade later, only one of these remains recognizable to me…Zimbabwe’s people.

Though now I have experienced more of the world’s triumphs and disappointments, I believe that Zimbabwe remains a country that should continue to invoke pride in its people. Not because of what now seems like utter economic and political regression, but rather in spite of it.

Zimbabwe today is plagued by shortages – shortages of life’s basics like cash, fuel, food, and most recently, water and electricity. Not to mention the shortage of trust in the formerly strong institutions and leaders that governed Zimbabwe after independence in 1980. These shortages are hard to make sense of in a country whose well-managed economic development once made it a strong, respected nation the world over.

I work for a U.S.-based family foundation that makes small grants to local, grassroots organizations working with vulnerable children in Zimbabwe and elsewhere in sub-Saharan Africa. Our grantee organizations in Zimbabwe have struggled tremendously over the past seven years with these shortages and with hyperinflation, at 250,000% in January. Through 2002’s Public Order and Security Act, each one of their activities and meetings are subject to government approval and surveillance. Yet our grantees remain committed to keeping their doors open. This, despite the tremendous burden of what is euphemistically referred to by Zimbabweans everyday as the socio-, economic-, and/or political- “situation.”

Our grantees work at the community-level to serve children and their families, providing such myriad services as education support (paying school fees, providing uniforms and materials), counseling for bereaved children who have lost their parents to AIDS, vocational skills training and income-generating projects, abuse prevention and treatment, rehabilitation of street children, provision of anti-retro viral treatment for HIV-positive children, and legal aid on such cases as stolen inheritance. While in Zimbabwe in January, I was astounded by what our grantees must now do to ensure these services continue. Everyday tasks now takes so much effort - the steps and details so complicated given the shortages and constraints. Time is never on our grantees’ side, especially in dealing with the immediate protection needs of children. Yet our grantees carry on. This speaks of not only their compassion and commitment, but of their remarkable coping and management skills.

What they are able to do is now more important than ever. Children are undoubtedly carrying the heaviest burden of the impact of Zimbabwe’s situation. They are obviously the most disadvantaged by the pressure on families and communities, but also through the “politicization” of everyday life in Zimbabwe and the significant damages to the health and education sectors.

There is no doubt that people are suffering in Zimbabwe. But it is equally true that many people and organizations in Zimbabwe are responding. Civil society, though struggling, remains strong and present. These organizations’ efforts must be recognized, valued, and supported.

Now is not the time for the philanthropic or donor community to withhold funding from Zimbabwe. Limited funding or a “wait and see” attitude is a flawed, and potentially dangerous strategy, especially for children. True, a foundation’s dollars might not retain the same value as in other countries, but seeing the incredible work of our grantees, I have no doubt that our dollars go just as far.

As philanthropists, our dollars are meant to support societal transformation. In spite of the difficult operating environment, civil society organizations in Zimbabwe are not only providing vital services for children and families. They are also well-positioned to ensure this change, both before and after an eventual regime change.

Children in Zimbabwe deserve to have their dreams. And in a time when it is hard to find hope, civil society organizations, both large and small, are building a brighter future through their work with children in Zimbabwe.

Kenyan activists gathered to peacefully urge the Kenyan government not to increase cabinet ministerial posts as a way of accommodating the power-sharing deal because this adds to an already bloated bureaucracy - instead power should be shared meaningfully within the posts that exist. Onyango Oloo here below is writing shortly after the Kenyan government tear-gassed the activists.

It is around three minutes to one in the afternoon here in Nairobi.

Slightly over forty minutes ago, I was part of a group of civil society activists who were sent scampering all over Uhuru Park after being tear gassed by the Kenyan riot police.

Among those dozens forced to shed sudden involuntary tears were Nobel Peace Laureate Wangari Maathai, well known Kenyan human rights lawyer Harun Ndubi, Kenya National Commission for Human Rights Chair Maina Kiai, Africog head honcho Gladwell Otieno, Awaaz Managing Editor Zahid Rajan, Bunge la Mwananchi regulars Samson Ojiayo and Gacheke; Open Society East Africa Director Binaifer Nowrojee; independent documentary film maker/activist Mbugua Kaba; singer/dancer/drummer/actor/activist "Toothbrush" Ooko; ODM Secretariat member Dr. Jospeh Misoi; feminist/GBLT activist " Ms. P"; NCEC Coordinator Ndung'u Wainaina; minority rights activist Ms. Patita; Fahamu staffer Stella Chege and even the colourful Orie Rogo Manduli.

The cops did not discriminate in their distribution of the noxious canisters: I saw Anne Mawadhe of the BBC and several other local and international media folks choking from the ubiquitous gas fumes.

Later, as we were exiting Uhuru Park-with some still trying to access Harambee Avenue, the ultimate destination of the protest march- I could not resist throwing a broadside a the clutch of askaris, headed by an Assistant Commissioner who were looking for an opportunity to clobber us with their over used rungus. Directing my ire and fire at their presumed boss, I berated them for thwarting the efforts of democracy loving, corruption hating Kenyans like us who were there to fight against a bloated cabinet precisely we were thinking of underpaid public servants like the police and prison warders who still lived in hovels and earned a pittance even as they put their lives on the line for the greedy fat cats lining up for big jobs at the expense of the poor mwananchi tax payers. For a moment, given his vicious ferocious glare, I thought the Assistant Commissioner would unleash his goons on me.

Whatever violent thought was passing through his mind, he let that thought pass and let me, pass too, through them to the other end, towards the Hotel Inter Continental.

Ironically, the rest of the rally had gone smoothly, peacefully and without an incident.

Statements were read and speeches were made by Maina Kiai, Gladwell Otieno and Wangari Maathai; the patriotic songs including the militant national anthem were sung by all of us. We all had our "No More Than 24!" placards and we all intoned our slogans.

What is intriguing is WHO gave the police instructions to disrupt our legal, peaceful, democratic and constitutionally protected right to assembly, freedom of expression and association?

Was it just the police bureaucracy acting on their own and obeying their blood thirsty instincts?

Or was it an order from the "government" trying to keep a lid on dissent?

Freedom Corner is of course associated in the public mind with protests againt the status quo.

At any rate, for such a routine civil society action, I was somewhat taken aback by the number of helmeted riot cops on hand to"welcome" us to Uhuru Park with their traditional feisty hospitality.

The question that needs to be posed to PNU and ODM is whether or not power sharing extends to the Kenyan people.

After all, it is the ordinary Wanjiku and the Achieng who ensured that these two major parties have so much political clout.

It is our votes which propelled them to parliament.

It is our taxes which sustain them-whether as backbenchers or full cabinet ministers.

When they want to demonstrate to their opposite numbers about their strength, it is to us their turn when it comes to mass mobilization.

Presumably, we should be their political bosses because we are the ones who keep them in power.

In other words, we have a direct stake in their power sharing wrangles between PNU and ODM.

Obviously, we may never be invited to those hush hush negotiations because some of the political players view us as irrelevant to the process.

But since this is OUR Kenya that they are talking about, we do not their word of approval to participate in the process.

We have a right to be involved in determining not just WHO governs us HOW, but what kind of policies and action points will ensue.

It is not just about PNU haggling over positions with ODM.

At the moment all praises are going to Kofi Annan as the man who saved Kenya.

We have quickly forgotten that long before Kofi Annan set foot in Kenya, there were already Kenyans from all walks of life- from Ambassador Bethwell Kiplagat to Muthoni Wanyeki and the youth in the informal settlements- who were busy calling for Peace, Democracy, Truth and Justice.

I feel that two main players-ODM especially- should take their time to study how the ANC kept in touch with its popular and social base even as it top leadership anchored by Nelson Mandela kept ordinary ANC members informed and involved in the details of the power sharing process even as they dialogued with the De Klerks and the Pik Bothas.

There is a need for the Kenyan people to step up to the plate and seize this historic moment in our country's political development and push through a thorough going agenda for constitutional and democratic reform and shake our mainstream politicians from their comfort zone.

We should redefine power sharing to mean the right of the poor to share power with the rich; the right of women to share power with men; the right of the vijana to share power with the wazee...

To do this we must have a battering ram, an organized voice- a force that brings together civil society, smal political parties, trade unions and other social forces.

Today we saw that the Kenyan neo-colonial STATE as opposed to the "government" has no qualms about reasserting its essential violent and coercive nature. It means that even after elections, even after the bloody carnage which followed after it and all those heart rendering peace songs and exhortations for reconciliation and national harmony, we still need to redefine the power dynamics expressed by the daily actions of the state in the lives of Kenyans.

Yesterday (at least according to the front page of the Daily Nation today, April 1, 2008) cops trying to disperse a similar peaceful communiy protest in Njiru, on the peripheries of Nairobi shot dead an unarmed woman who was not even in the protest but sitting as a passenger in a public service vehicle. As we speak, units of the Kenya Army are busy torturing peasants in Mt. Elgon and shooting dead innocent civilians in an attempt to "restore peace" in that western Kenyan region that has been rocked and wracked with state and militia violence.

As Kenyans with a democratic conscience we need to tell the powers that be that there are effective alternatives to those Rambo intrusions- whether it is tear gassing peaceful protestors in downtown Nairobi; shooting in cold blood a woman in a matatu in Njiru or torturing villagers in Mt. Elgon.

In the meantime let me go back to two Sixties/Seventies slogans:

A Lutta Continua!

Un Pueblo Unido, Hamas Sera Vencido!

*Onyango Oloo, a Kenyan political activist and ex political prisoner.

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

The Council, at its meeting of 13th March 2008, approved the appointment of Professor Issa G. Shivji to the Mwalimu Julius Nyerere Research Chair in Pan-African Studies of the University of Dar es Salaam.

Born in Kilosa, Tanzania in 1946, Professor Shivji was for 36 years a distinguished professor in Constitutional Law in the University of Dar es Salaam's Faculty of Law. He is a professor of international renown, having built his reputation through the publication of over 18 books, numerous articles and book chapters. He has received several national and international distinguished scholar awards, including an honorary doctorate from the University of East London, UK. Professor Shivji has devoted most of his life to addressing issues on the exploitation of Tanzanians through both the national and the international economic and legal orders.

The University Research Chair is envisaged to be motivated by interdisciplinary research, which will address the socio-economic, scientific and cultural problems facing the African Continent and the country, and which will stimulate thinking and debate that takes account of the continent's historical achievements and the international challenges facing it.

The functions of the Chair will be to develop and promote ideas in interdisciplinary basic research on broad development issues from a Pan-African perspective; to reinvigorate the University as a site of rigorous intellectual debate and discussions through varied activities including quality publications; and to create opportunities for debates on development directions.

The Chair will be officially launched on 15th April 2008, to coincide with the week of Mwalimu's birthday. The occasion will be marked by lectures, palavers, a book launch and exhibitions.

Pambazuka News and Fahamu staff extend their congratulations to Issa on this well deserved appointment.

John Mutambirwa responds to Grace Kwinjeh and Patrick Bond's commentary on Zimbabwe [http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/features/46561]

AN UNTHINKABLE AND WELCOME GUESS!

Given the kind of social, political and intellectual ferment that characterizes Zim society today, it certainly should not be considered a rude, unjust and unsporting impertinence for one to voice a few cautionary reservations about the gushingly generous laudations usually heaped on the current Zim government's early successes in ushering in a rapid amelioration of education and health. While these approbations are, indubitably, well merited, what cannot be easily comprehended is a hypothetical re-imagining of history which would attempt to gauge what a Sithole, or a Nkomo, or even a Muzorewa, administration would have achieved in the same areas.  That a real-time social re-creation of such a development(s) is impossible, yet imaginable, is one of the tantalizing humours of human history. My immediate and ill-educated guess is that, success in these areas, given any of the cited possibilities, would not have been significantly different.

OF ECONOMY OF CENTS

Good commentary on the economic hiccups concerning the future of Zim. Couldn't agree more.  I am very much in agreement re commentary on plan for economic transformation that is embraced by the opposition. It does not seem to differ much from that which RGM, and desparate (if well fed) company, have practised to date -- i.e neoliberalism -- with the exception that the one in evidence to date seems to be a particularly insiduous strain of fascist capitalism which requires a close relationship between the state and economic elites -- the state elite being mostly composed of top dogs in the ruling party, of course -- some of them being men and women of significant economic substance.

That is one of the reasons I find certain well-measured bellyaches regarding the Zim situation (which cavils, unfortunately, verge towards thoughtful casuistry) by business friendly gadflies alarmingly misleading.  It would appear that they have never asked themselves how an administration, seemingly committed to a more-or-less egalitarian socio-economic ethos, would have so easily (providing, of course, that the recipients of such munificence played political ball) allowed a chosen few facile ownership of a variety of business concerns in Zim, be it in tourism or mining or whatsoever.  This certainly appears to be a weird way for the government to express its egalitarian, socialist ethos!!  I shall not comment on the glaring, obtaining, lopsided wealth and income distribution that currently characterizes the same exemplar of socialist management!!  Bless your soul, John Saul!

This is the kind of intellectual malaise I find afflicting even indigenous critics of the status quo, who mindlessly refer to RGM's regime as socialist.  Pity that the same chorus is then repeated by respected, if equally indolent and irrelevant, international commentators.  A government that is neoliberal to the core is then presented as a bunch of wooly-headed impractical idealists of the socialist school.

A SLIGHT AND SLEIGHT DIGRESSION

Perhaps a modest digression on this socialist theme is here necessary.  I confess that I am tempted to discuss this theme with passionate garrulity, but will have to - given the beckoning and sobering realization that I might be both unwisely worrying the reader's finite patience and also that I am loath to display my spotty comprehension of such a comprehensive theme to a glowering public - limit my comments to a few timidly expressed points.

The continued reference - as socialist - (in the name of unreflective mutilation of meaning!) to the sort of economic management, on display in both contemporary Zim and China, is so mindboggling as to drive one to a madhouse.  In the abidingly erratic view of this author, what would seem to be the obtaining administrative pattern in the economic realm of the latter is a robustly authoritarian dirigisme (which is hardly in comportment with the socialist trends - equally despotic - of its immediate past), and in the former (as in most economically battered developing countries), a markedly diffident version (fearfully and sporadically manifested) of the same dirigisme - a not-too-surprising scheme of things, in light of the apprehensive and furtive glances over their shoulders that the policy makers, of such a country as Zim, steal at the headmasterly ferrule of Mr Bretton Woods.

The immediately preceding comment might provoke a pained and censorious brouhaha from those who would be quick to counter that recent events, indicative of counterproductive administrative meddlesomeness (price controls being one of them), are unambiguous pointers to Zim's embrace of the dirigisme of the robust variety.  I cannot accede to this criticism, for current manifestations of official meddlesomeness are little more than desperate actions resorted to to ameliorate an irremediably wretched situation. A very instructive instance of the emotively deflating observation, "too little too late". The telling damage was done long ago during the heady days of maddening flirtation with the enticing magic of the Washington Consensus,  whose sudden termination left Zim officialdom with a broken heart and a diminished will to live. Besides, one might as well mention in passing the schizophrenic policy clashes, within the administration, that occasionally manifest themselves in contradictory approaches to formulation and implentation of policy between Prime Minister Gono's office and the Presidency.

One wonders when the next batch of extremely worn out Zim dollars will be dispatched to the punctilious Bretton Woods debtors!  Which again makes me wonder what the MDC's thoughts on the debt overhang are. Will the MDC threaten a well planned delinquency - a la Argentina - or will it let fall a loud diplomatic blare re debt cancellation?  My person has run out of tea leaves (perhaps, a reflection of the prevalent, obtaining, dire economic straits!) to consult with regard this particular.

The same errant train of thought effectively afflicts the same social critics in their approach to such headline-grabbing themes as "Nationalization" and "Indigenization" and the intellectually lazy tendency (so liberally exibited by the same critical horde) towards treating them as semantically and practically interchangeable.  The former (given that democratic discourse and practice are its defining hallmarks) can be properly referred to as a move towards effecting a more equalitarian social dispensation at best, or, in somewhat more diluted form, a move towards smoothing the jagged edges of a remotely socially sympathetic capitalism - both outcomes being discretionarily engineered by the government then ruling.  The latter has, all too often, exhibited itself as none other than the much discredited classical nationalism informed by the philosophy of displacing a colonial with an indigenous elite.

AND MORGAN THE PILATE

" And what is truth?", asked the jesting and intellectually ovewhelmed ruler of Judea. One gets the far from easy sentiment that Morgan Tsvangirai is in like intellectual and spiritual torment when one considers his answers to questions on the economy when he was recently interviewed by SWradioAfrica on this particular.

To begin with, it is rather difficult to get a good read on Morgan's comments regarding developmental assistance (be it gratis or in the form of manageable loans).  Depending on the language in which such assistance is robed, it can be, and has probatively been so in many instances, developmentally malign.  It is rather difficult to imagine that a prostrate economy, such as Zim's, still has a sufficient reservoir of bargaining energy (usually a confident companion of an advanced degree of economic autonomy) to emerge as mutual winner in negotiative gives-and-takes regarding this particular.  Nor is it easy to imagine that, in the interests of prudent self preservation and careful navigation of all possible priorities, Morgan and company have cast a thoughtfully tentative glance at Latin America. My uninformed guess is that little cerebration has been expended in this direction. It can only be fitfully guessed how much Latin American Chavistas would like to establish a beachead for their brand of social governance in Africa and also what the warmth of receptivity of oppositional policy wonks to such a diplomatic overture would be.

The same commanding uncertainty accompanies Morgan's view on subsidies. Morgan emphatically pointed out that no such discretionary assistance would be forthcoming to local companies and individuals who can afford it.  These are brave fighting words in the teeth of the global opening up of the economy and the ubiquitous presence of South African influence in many facets of the Zim economy.  It also seems to pay scant regard to the companion deindustrialization of the opening up of the economy experienced in the immediate past -- not locally beneficial arrangements these, in terms of wealth creation and concomitant increase of employment oppsrtunities. Nor does it consider how to counter South African competition in both local and regional (perhaps, effectively lost and and now irretrievable) markets without arranging for some form of enabling subsidies to local producers.. And, by the way, these problems will manifest their enduring qualities even in a Zim minus RGM or ZANU!

It would appear that a robust discretionary meddling with the economy will have to be a fact of life (especially for an economy so wretchedly stooped and bent as Zim's) for a very long time to come. It would also appear, as Patrick Bond has so persuasively pointed out elsewhere, that some oppositional policy wonks have never learnt anything from the discretionary economic management of the Smith regime in Rhodesia and the apartheid one in South Africa, both of which manifested a goodly amount of prudence and foresight in establishing a nationally comforting measure of economic autonomy, and in creating very effective speed bumps to reign in footloose, speed demons of the international fast lane.

By the way, it might be necessary to mention reassuringly on this head, that discretionary policy, in so far as it is carefully thought out and also informed by a profoundly democratic impulse (in contradistinction to the blunderbuss approach that Zimmers have become all too familiar with) cannot but work for the greater social weal.

Nor have they listened to the nostalgic worries of the majority of ordinary Russians today, who could poignantly tell them that (were the wheel of history capable of opportune reversal) they most certainly would welcome a vigorous glasnost -- always needed for an invigorating blast of democratic fresh air -  but would be extremely and peevishly wary of a perestroika whose draught plans were laid out by crafty Bretton Woods architects.(1) (see comment at the end in regard this theme)

I find the comments on the diaspora interesting.  I have always wondered why, even in elections past, with such a significat portion of the electorate having moved further afield, the numerical total of voters on the voters roll has remained constant.  The MDC, however, still soldiers on with masochistic fortitude even given these seemingly insoluble brain teasers. Verily, a veritable cornucopia of masochistic valour is needed to conduct oppositional politics in Zim today!  Resoundingly persuasive reasons for participation in such elections will always be conjured up. Such is the nature of being always put in a politically reactive mode!  I do, however, know that had RGM found himself in a like position, he would have been the first one to combat it with extra-parliamentary vigorousness. What!  With all the copious wisdom of the degrees of wisdom under his belt to draw from!

As much as my bilious temperament has been so unsurprisingly provoked that I should like to comment without cease for a few years more, there appears to be still a scintilla of embattled patience, which has not been been crowded out by the riot of emotions in my house of personality, in a remote nook of my mind sagely prompting me to cease and desist here.  If you cannot read anything further than the next fullstop, it might have just succeeded in doing that.

But, hang on, there is still that insistent footnote to deal with below!

(1) In the same reflectively compassionate vein as that of the Russians, many a plaintive observer would probably point out that:

(ii) In regard to the hallowed gospel of the inerrantly functional market society, contemporary highest wisdom would claim that: while it indicated unquestionably meritorious patriotic stewardship, on the part of the US government, to intervene in the market to keep abreast of, and even emulate, sub-systemic patterns of Soviet administration that were responsible  for military, and near military, excellence (the MIGS, the AK 47s and the sputniks, among others), it would have been unforgivable folly (of purgatorial authorship!) to emulate subsystems that were responsible for keeping the general Russian populace well housed, well educated and sanitarily provided.

It can be profitably, if secretively, conjectured that the former variety of emulation, besides being patriotically noble (a sentiment in which the broad population is emotively elevated) is also incidentally and mundanely lucrative to those in the aerospace and military industry -- a species of payoff not so broadly generous to, or even remotely experienced by, the underlying population.

(iii)  The current bailing out (to the tune of half a trillion dollars US) of a few financial houses in the US also springs to mind.  Though it must be pointed out that the current malaise -- malignly repercussing globally and also the cause of a recession in the U.S. -- extends beyond the oft-mentioned mortgage chicanery and includes the agile accounting footwork manifested by many swagger companies that keeps a lot of extra-budgetary transactions off their official ledgers. Great tribute to the free market is this!!

(iii) Perhaps it would be overkill, on my censorious part, to make passing mention of the infinite amount of riders in international agreements which allow the US and European administrations to subsidize unilaterally and liberally their industries at the very same time that "developing" countries experience severely incapacitating deindustrializing throes.  Not quite surprising, since these riders happen to be the brainchildren of lawyerly verbal flair and Daedalian logic with which both the US and Europe are more than adequately blest. Mentally uncomplicated, starry-eyed yokels, such as this author, cannot but help reciting (in regard to the immediately preceding) Oliver Goldsmiths lines on disarmingly impressionable rustics:

"While words of learned length and thundering sound Amazed the gazing rustics rang'd round;"

*John Mutambirwa is has worked with a local chapter of the National Urban League in New Jersey, was an Economics Justice editor for AfricaFiles and is involved in internet advocacy.

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

Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem turns a timely and critical eye on Colonel Muamar Gaddafi and asks: Have we indulged the Spiritual guide and first citizen of the Libyan Arab People's Socialist Jamahiriya for too long?

The Brother Leader, Colonel Muamar Gaddafi, the Spiritual guide and first citizen of the Libyan Arab People's Socialist Jamahiriya, is in Uganda on a four-day official visit.

No sooner than he landed in Uganda did he start saying things that delighted his adulatory supporters and lullaby to his host, but make his critics cry wolf. In closing a ten-day meeting of African/Arab Youth he repeated his controversial thesis about revolutionaries not retiring, not needing term limits and democracy as an imposition from the west and surprise! Surprise!! The revolutionary leader He (in power for 39 years)declared his host, Museveni (in power only for 22 years but still counting!) and uncle Bob of Zimbabwe (in power for 28 years and soon getting himself 're-elected' whether Zimbabweans like it or not!), as the genuine articles among Africa's state house bound revolutionaries!

I do not subscribe to a lot of the Gaddafiphobia that we have been fed with over the years by reactionary African leaders and western ideological warriors who are now falling over themselves to do business with Gaddafi. I have met the Leader several times and support Libya on many Pan African and international issues. When we held the 7th PAC in Kampala his support was only second to that of the host country, Uganda. I am and will always consider myself a friend of the Jamahiriya.

However, as any person who has been in solidarity with Libya may admit privately, Brother Gaddafi is a very difficult friend to have. The political system he has developed in Libya is highly personalised and leader-centric with the inner core vulnerable to instability based on who is in and who is out based on his whims. While the Leader may enjoy popular support, there is no strong evidence that the popular masses have really internalised the ideals of the revolution, four decades after. That is why you have periodic conflicts between Libyans and other Africans often with racial overtones while the Leader is busy promoting stronger unity, solidarity and Pan Africanism.

Unfortunately, most of the supporters and the so called friends of the Jamahiriya do not tell the Leader the truth. This makes him vulnerable to flatterers, charlatans and opportunists both in interstate relations and in popular diplomacy. And he seems to enjoy and even crave the fake adulation. And they come wearing all kinds of ideological and religious masks. The more militant the better!

A consequence of this cheap populism is the tendency for the Brother leader to say anything, make unguarded declarations and sometimes espouse half-baked ideas that should embarrass any genuine comrade. But no one will tell the emperor that he is naked.

Sometimes when he really has original ideas and is willing to put his money where his mouth is, the penchant for showmanship becomes fertile ground for his enemies and critics to kill the ideas and even some of his so-called friends to play games with him.

One of such is his support for an accelerated integration of Africa which he has been championing since the Sirte extra ordinary Summit in September 1999. It was not just reactionary African leaders that led the onslaught in Accra. His 'revolutionary’ friends, including Presidents Museveni, Mbeki, and Prime Minister Meles were among those who torpedoed the Union Government proposal in favour of tortoise speed.

Yet Libya continues to spend disproportionate resources on lobbying leaders believing that once they say yes, we will achieve Unity by fiat. If Libya had spent a tiny proportion of what it spends on these leaders in building strategic partnership with democratic forces, peoples groups, parliaments, youth women and student groups, trade unionists and other progressive forces in raising popular consciousness and political mobilisation in many countries in Africa, there would have been greater success because the masses will be driving and pushing the leaders. Unfortunately because its system is also leader-driven from top downwards it cannot engage with genuine democratic forces. When Libya attempts popular diplomacy because they are not always good readers of country situations, they fall victim to conference mercenaries just like the jamboree that has just ended in Kampala.

In spite of his continuing rhetoric against imperialism Libya is in reality now aligned to the west in an understandable Post Lockerbie realism. It is no longer a pariah state. And Tripoli has again become a magnate for all manner of western companies and executive tourism for western leaders. That is why it is cooperating with the EU on xenophobic immigration policies to enhance fortress Europe by stopping desperate Africans from using Libya to cross into the EU. I am no advocate of Africans going to wash plates and do all kinds of dirty jobs in Europe. Our future lies on this continent with so much wealth but only appreciated and appropriated by others thanks to the collaboration of our leaders who act as dealers. However a genuine Pan Africanist state should not act as Gate Keepers for the West. Instead of deporting these Africans, why can't Libya show its seriousness about freedom of movement for Africans by giving them the right to settle and work in Libya? That will be leadership by example with which it can challenge other African states to set our peoples free and return Africa to Africans.

We have indulged the Brother leader for too long.

While Revolutionaries may not retire from the revolution, they should not imprison the revolution in the state house by insisting they have to remain there for life. The longer they hang on to power the more reactionary they become as revolutionary goals give way to personal and regime security.
What kind of revolution is the Brother leader talking about that depends on only one leader after so many decades?

Let history judge whether those who speak uncompromising truth to power are the real revolutionaries or those who flatter leaders as irreplaceable.

There is no doubt in my mind that even if the citizens cannot remove these permanent leaders, death will eventually retire them. The grave yards of history are full of many delusionary leaders who thought themselves immortal.

*Dr Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem writes this syndicated column in his private capacity as a Pan Africanist. His views are not attributable to that of any organization he works for or is affiliated with.

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

Dewa Mavhinga makes a case for the resignation of the Zimbabwean police chief who has vowed to only salute Mugabe

Utterances and statements emerging from Zimbabwe's uniformed forces, starting with Rt Major General Paradzayi Zimondi, Head of Prisons, to the effect that they will not accept or salute either opposition Movement for Democratic Change Presidential candidate Morgan Tsvangirai or Independent and former ruling party minister Simba Makoni (should they win the Presidential election on 29 March) cannot go unchallenged. Police Commissioner-General Augustine Chihuri and Army General Constantine Chiwenga are also on record saying they will not accept Robert Mugabe losing to what they derisively termed 'puppets'. There is no room for such misguided utterances in Zimbabwe; these men of uniform must resign with immediate effect.

Zimbabweans will not be held to ransom by a bunch of men who should know that it is highly unprofessional for the army, police and prisons to delve in political matters or to attempt to influence the vote by spreading fear, alarm and despondence. Political engagement and discourse is for civilians and civilians alone, it is a fundamental right of the people of Zimbabwe to determine through the ballot who they wish to lead them; the uniformed forces must be reminded that this is none of their business. The uniformed forces belong to the people of Zimbabwe and have an obligation to respect democratic political processes and must swear allegiance to whomsoever Zimbabweans chose as leader.

It must be stated clearly that it is treasonous and shameful for the leadership of uniformed forces to issue such irresponsible statements threatening to return to war if President Mugabe loses elections; it is shameful for government of Zimbabwe to remain silent and not condemn outright such utterances; worst of all, it is shameful and unacceptable that SADC and international community should remain silent in the face of these treasonous statements which are obviously meant to sway and compel voters to vote for a value system that is unmarketable and can only be forced down the throats of the masses. Effectively, Chihuri, Chiwenga and Zimondi have become Zanu PF campaign agents, poor ones at that, as they only know the language of threats. It is very strange that, in the face of all these unconstitutional, frivolous and inflammatory utterances, South African President Thabo Mbeki still has the audacity to express hope that Zimbabwe elections will be free and fair. One wonders what benchmarks Mbeki is applying to elections in Zimbabwe; they are certainly not the SADC guidelines, standards and norms for the conduct of free and fair elections.

How can elections in Zimbabwe be possibly be credible, free and fair when the electorate is threatened with war should they vote out Mugabe? Enough is enough, we cannot accept mortgaging Zimbabwe's future to a few cronies who selfishly cling to the past and are keen to destroy Zimbabwe for selfish personal interests. In a new Zimbabwe there will be no place for unqualified and unprofessional people in our uniformed forces, people will hold office on the basis of merit and merit alone, so let beneficiaries of political patronage beware. This old guard in army, police and prisons must know that it is now time for professional uniformed forces who are not in any way part of political formations and that should either Morgan Tsvangirai or Simba Makoni win in the coming elections, if they do not wish to salute they must simply resign and go home. Already they have outlived their usefulness in these institutions and must be replaced in order to take our uniformed forces back to values of impartiality, patriotism, professionalism and allegiance to Zimbabwe's constitutional values. Chihuri, Chiwenga and Zimondi cannot masquerade as kingmakers and godfathers of Zimbabwean politics, they must confine themselves to their terms of engagement which categorically exclude meddling in political affairs of the country.

The rank and file in the army, police and prisons must also reject these patently partisan and unprofessional utterances and be patriotic enough to resist illegal orders to vote for Mugabe. Soldiers, Police officers and prison officers have a right to vote, their vote must be a secret and a personal choice and not an order from anyone. I am hopeful and positive that the views expressed by these cronies are views of a tiny minority in Zimbabwe and do not reflect the views of masses inside and outside uniformed forces who love peace and democracy and are equally fed up with a diet of starvation and rantings of little men allergic to democracy and good governance. As a patriotic Zimbabwean, it is my sincere hope and trust, and my prayer that sense will prevail over madness.

*Dewa Mavhinga is a Zimbabwean Human Rights Lawyer.

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

Dear Friends, May the spirit of International Day in Solidarity with the Haitian People continue to spread!
If the more than 10,000 people killed in the 18 months that followed the February 29, 2004 coup d’état could speak, what would they say? Would they join voices with the young women raped and sexually assaulted since the coup?

The Pan African Youth Leadership Forum II will be a one-week program to be held in Egypt in June 2008.The Pan African Youth Leadership Forum II is a follow up to the first Pan African Youth Leadership Forum (PAYLF), "Democracy in Africa: Renewing the Vision," which was held in Accra, Ghana, June 18 – 25, 2007. The PAYLF will be held annually to take stock of achievements, analyze the current political and economic situation in Africa, make recommendations and develop an agenda which will be presented to leaders present at the African Union Heads of State summit.