Zimbabwe in 2006: still one nation with one reality?

THE constitution of Zimbabwe defines the country as a sovereign republic with the Constitution as the supreme law.
Under the constitution, the country’s Head of State and Head of the Government as well as the Commander in Chief of the Defence Forces is the President. At independence, the President was a titular head of state and the Prime Minister was the Head of the Government.
Zimbabwe has not been privileged to have any other head of government than its incumbent, President Mugabe, who assumed the role of an Executive President in 1987 following the unity accord between Zanu PF and ZAPU in 1987.
In 1987, President Mugabe was elected by Parliament as the first Executive President of the country and, therefore, his legitimacy as President was derived from Parliament and not directly from the people of Zimbabwe. In 1990, he was elected directly by the people through a popular vote pursuant to the amended Constitution of the country.
The debate that has been generated by the decision of Zanu PF to harmonise the Presidential and Parliamentary elections exposes the immaturity of Zimbabwean politics as well as the limited understanding of the constitutional and legal framework that underpins a sovereign nation like Zimbabwe. More has been read into this decision than is merited by the facts on the ground.
It is common cause that a party that holds more than two thirds of the seats in parliament has the right to amend the constitution of the country and, in fact, Zanu PF has used its majority in parliament to make significant changes to the constitution including the reintroduction of the senate last year. It is also important to note that the real casualty of the decision by Zanu PF to reintroduce the senate was the opposition that split into two irreconcilable factions with no evidence of any split in Zanu PF.
The senate debate is now gone and yet analysts would want the public to believe that the proposed constitutional amendment by Zanu PF and the procedural issues that necessitated the resolution to be referred to the party’s central committee should be taken as a sign that Zanu PF is a fundamentally divided party. No explanation is provided by these analysts about the manner in which Zanu PF has consistently and effectively used its majority in parliament to enact a series of laws and constitutional amendments without any evidence of revolt against the Executive.
It is also ironic that there has been no debate within Zanu PF about the role and functions of an Executive President like President Mugabe. The attention that has been focused on Zanu PF before and after the just ended conference confirms the allegation that the only real debate about the future of Zimbabwe has to be located within the ruling party and those who seek an alternative appear at best to be reactionary and devoid of any strategic vision.
Being an observer of political developments in Africa in general, I have come to the inescapable conclusion that Zimbabwe appears to be three countries in one and the last twenty years of a monolithic power structure has left the country more divided and confused than at independence in 1980 when the common agenda was the creation of a unitary sovereign state in which equity and growth would characterize the future.
It is important to recognise that a new nation within the nation of Zimbabwe has been created and this nation is peopled by politicians, journalists, political commentators, top businessmen (including some from the UK) and others obsessed with the country’s political crises or rather Zanu PF’s perceived succession quagmire, arguments with the Bush and Blair administration over the causal link between the economic meltdown in Zimbabwe and the targeted sanctions regime, corruption scandals, the quasi-fiscal operations of the RBZ, and the lack of action on the urgently needed economic reforms.
The second Zimbabwe is to be located in the black or parallel market where a few well connected individuals are making significant inroads into the wealth accumulation enterprises often using primitive methods. A new class is emerging in Zimbabwe fueled by a dysfunctional economic system characterized by opaque governance structures where rent seeking behavior is rewarded while genuine enterprise is criminalized. This Zimbabwe is proving to be more efficiently run without any accountability. Even the President of the country may not have a clue about the real size of this hidden economy and the extent to which his colleagues in the executive branch of government as well as members of the judiciary and legislature may be active participants in the undermining of the rule of law and property rights. Judging by the speeches of the President on matters regarding corruption, it is evident that he may be living in an ivory tower insulated from the real second Zimbabwe and its cancerous impact on the future of the republic.
The third Zimbabwe is found in the run-down private and public institutions. It is also to be found in the majority unemployed and vulnerable groups whose access to health, water, power and other essential services has been permanently compromised by bad policies. In this Zimbabwe, Christmas and New Year means nothing and yet they are told everyday that the root cause of their poverty is to be found in the conspiracy of the Bush and Blair administration or the Anglo-Saxons who remain determined to decolonize the country. In this world the opposition finds its support particularly among the urban underclass and poor. The last 26 years has seen this segment of the population increasing by the day and yet confused about the underlying causes of the political, economic and social crises facing the country. This Zimbabwe is understandably angry at Zimbabwe one and two.
Gaps between the political elite and the ordinary citizens and between poor and rich exist in many African countries but in Zimbabwe they are becoming more acute by the day partly induced by senseless policies of the RBZ. The President is convinced that a web of criminals, businessmen, imperialist conspiracies driven by a regime change agenda, power hungry Zanu PF politicians, and corrupt public officials are the root causes of the problem in Zimbabwe.
The journey of sovereignty has been complicated by a historical legacy that can provide good raw material for any politician who is power hungry. The argument is crafted intelligently in such a manner that even those aspiring for a higher office will soon realize that there is no vacancy. For how can a nation that was founded from the womb of a brutal colonial regime think of a regime change inspired by the same evil forces that oppressed the majority? Having accepted that Zimbabwe’s sovereignty has no market and cannot be auctioned to the highest bidder, it is then argued that no other political formation than those that fought for independence should be qualified to take charge and determine the destiny of the country.
It is also argued that the people of Zimbabwe spoke at the last two elections i.e. Presidential and parliamentary when they chose a Zanu PF President and a Zanu PF-led house. Given that the need to harmonize the two elections has economic and political justification, it is then argued that there is no reason to have an election in 2008 where in the unlikely circumstances an opposition President is elected but with a poison parliament, Zimbabwe will be better off than have President Mugabe who can claim that without him, it would be unthinkable for Zanu PF parliamentarians to have won the election if they had run on other political labels. President Mugabe can legitimately claim that the party was instrumental in achieving the electoral success and as such there is nothing wrong about the party deciding to harmonies the two elections and in so doing ensure that any constitutional crisis is avoided.
President Mugabe can draw comfort from global developments in Latin America where candidates with similar ideological positions to him have been democratically elected, and in the case of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, re-elected. Against a global environment that is hostile to developing nations, it is then argued that Zanu PF’s best weapon to deal with the challenges cannot be anyone other than President Mugabe.
In as much as Zanu PF has defined the agenda for the last 26 years, it is argued that any viable solutions for the country should necessarily come from the party. If the opposition accepts that Zimbabwe is a sovereign country and a republic whose source of legitimacy is the people of the country, then how can they challenge the constitutional right of a majority party to decide what is good for the country. The parliament of Zimbabwe was democratically elected it is then argued and as such has the power to elect a President to fill in the vacancy for the period 2008 through 2010.
In Zanu PF, it is instructive that there is no other individual who has dominated the party as President Mugabe and it is unthinkable that the Central Committee of the party would challenge him. If persons like Mavhaire who once was quoted as saying: “Mugabe must go” can see sense in coming back to Zanu PF and being appointed to the Politiburo, then it is argued that the prospect of anyone mounting a challenge to Mugabe is technically non existent.
Even ZAPU came to its senses and accepted the unity accord rather than trying to challenge Mugabe. In raising these issues, it is important that those who seek change invest in understanding what, if any, are the appropriate strategies of effecting the kind of political and economic reforms that Zimbabwe needs. It would be counterproductive for people to invest time and effort in analyzing what the perceived factions within Zanu PF may have in mind about the proposed constitutional changes when it is common cause that the party has only one bull in the kraal. The party has used President Mugabe to fight in every election including parliamentary elections.
Those who have observed the Zimbabweans political scene would agree that the last parliamentary election was indeed a referendum on Mugabe and to the extent that the opposition accepted to be part of the governance structure of the country on the basis of the results, they have less legitimacy now to begin to challenge the proposed changes. In a democracy, those who represent minority parties know the consequences of the decisions taken by the majority party. In fact, democracy is founded on the tyranny of the majority even if it is known that the changes they seek to make to the constitution may not have the popular support.
In as much as Zanu PF has defined the post colonial agenda, it is incumbent upon those who seek change to define the post Mugabe era without relying on any help from the same party that they seek to unseat. It is interesting that even the opposition parties are banking on Zanu PF central committee to challenge Mugabe’s hegemony instead of defining what their agenda should be. It would be fool hardy for any incumbent governing party to invest in its own demise as many are expecting Zanu PF to do. Why would President Mugabe choose to leave office in 2008 when his party has the parliamentary majority to constitutionally ensure that by 2010 the opposition is sufficiently weakened to challenge the party? Equally, the President who was against the constitutional reforms that led to the formation of the MDC appears now to be the proponent of far reaching changes that may return Zimbabwe to the pre-1987 era where a Prime Minister was elected by the Parliament. Under this dispensation, it will be more difficult for any populist opposition candidate to lead the country in the future.
What is interesting in the debates about succession is the lack of reality tests to the assumptions that inform many conclusions. If one carefully examines the Zanu PF constitutions it will be abundantly clear that anyone who is not supported by the four Mashonaland Provinces will have difficulty in becoming a leader of the party. Mashonaland has four votes where only need two votes to determine who becomes a leader. Given this structure, it is unthinkable that President Mugabe will fail to garner the support he needs to make the changes that entrench his own party as well as ensure that the party is well positioned to determine the successor. By making the changes to the constitution, Zanu PF may actually have out-witted the opposition having drawn lessons from the Malawian and Zambian disasters where successors turned against the very people who had made them.
The President’s term will end in 2008 and as such his universal mandate will no longer exist. Under the constitution, extraordinary powers have been vested with the President on the basis that his legitimacy was drawn directly from the people. It is not clear whether a President who has assumed such powers can continue to be vested with the same powers when his mandate has ended and he will only be indirectly elected by parliament. It is important that the debate shifts from the right of a majority party to make constitutional changes to the powers of the President in the transition.
If a President is elected by parliament, who is he then accountable to? What kind of role should such a President have? Can parliament elect someone who is not a Parliamentarian as a President of the country with executive powers? I am reminded that in South Africa, the President is elected by Parliament from among its ranks. The real devil is in the details and it is important that people of Zimbabwe and all Africans interested in the progress of the country keep their eyes on the price rather than focusing on irrelevant constitutional debates.
Zimbabwe may have irreparably lost its identity as a one nation with a common value system to inform its strategic choices including succession. With three nations in one, the Zimbabwean reality is more complex and confusing to lend itself to simple interpretations. A complex reality calls for careful analytical and conceptual reflections and insights that can only add value to the nation building enterprise.
The third and often forgotten Zimbabwe may in the final analysis determine the outcome rather than Zimbabwe one and two where state and non-state actors from both the ruling and opposition parties may not exhibit any distinguishing characteristics to assist citizens in making the right choices and developing appropriate actions required to transform a stolen and outsourced republic. To what extent will the proposed constitutional changes address the fundamental economic, social and political challenges that Zimbabwe faces can only be answered by those who see in political power the solution to all problems while blind to the fact that their exit may release the country to move to higher heights and deliver promise to its people without favor or prejudice.

Africa: prosperity or poverty?

IN A world defined by brands and products, Africa’s identity will continue to be shaped more by its challenges than by its promise.
Africa still has to make its mark in the business of history but as we mark the end of 2006, we cannot escape reflecting on the past 15 years during which Africa was privileged to be represented at the helm United Nations (UN) Secretariat.
Koffi Annan, the first Sub-Saharan African to be Secretary General of the UN, ended his ten year term last week by passing the torch to the first Korean Secretary General, Ban Ki Moon.
Africa’s contribution to history of mankind is not only controversial but complex. Even among Africans there is no consensus on the precise role of Africa in shaping global events and history not only because of the generally accepted notion that there is a global conspiracy to keep Africa and its people down but because of a lack of a visible and enlightened leadership to move the agenda of Africans forward at a supranational level. Of the African icons, Marcus Garvey, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Mandela, and many others stand out but Annan remains the only Sub-Saharan African to us the UN as an address for 10 years and I have no doubt that history will accord him a special place as a first African achiever whose contribution to African civilization and hope is yet to be fully digested and told.
The UN system is nothing but an attempt by governments of the world in the post-World War II, to create a platform where global security (or insecurity?) and development can be the focus of human endeavor.
After more than 60 years of existence, the UN still continues to be challenged by Africa’s condition and its apparent inability to extricate itself from poverty and underdevelopment. At a time when the world is challenged by other issues including the threats to human civilisation posed by nuclear proliferation, unequal trade regime, climate change, global pandemics, or terrorism, African agenda has to be competitive and relevant.
In an increasing challenging and challenged global environment, we have seen many leaders in the developing world positioning themselves as new warriors against what they rightly or wrongly perceive as the new global threat i.e. the abuse of the international system of governance at the UN level by a few rich nations. Against a backdrop of a global environment that is unequal and undemocratic, the prospect for Africans escaping from the control of dictators is remote. Indeed, many leaders have now responded by extending their terms either through democratic manipulation or through sheer force.
After the Iraq debacle, the excuses by illegitimate leaders often presiding over failed states to remain in power are many. The world today is more unsafe and lacks the leadership that would discourage power intoxicated leaders from releasing their subjects from humanly created bondage. What is even more ironic is that the same leaders who fail to exhibit democratic credentials in their home states are the very champions of reforming the UN to make it more democratic and accommodating of the poor and globally disenfranchised majority of nations. I could think of no better topic to pay tribute to Annan than to take an extract from his farewell speech on his insights into what the world in general and Africa in particular should take from him.
I have chosen what Annan classified as the third lesson he learned at the helm of the UN as follows: “Both security and prosperity depend on respect for human rights and the rule of law.
Throughout history human life has been enriched by diversity, and different communities have learnt from each other. But if our communities are to live in peace we must stress also what unites us: our common humanity, and the need for our human dignity and rights to be protected by law.
That is vital for development, too. Both foreigners and a country’s own citizens are more likely to invest when their basic rights are protected and they know they will be fairly treated under the law. And policies that genuinely favour development are more likely to be adopted if the people most in need of development can make their voice heard.
States need to play by the rules towards each other, as well. No community anywhere suffers from too much rule of law; many suffer from too little – and the international community is among them. This we must change.”
In as much as Annan has learned that there is a causal and direct relationship between human progress and security with respect for human rights and the rule of law, there are many Africans who genuinely believe that African can develop with leaders who believe in the rule by law and not in the rule of law and equally believe that the human rights doctrine is nothing but a conspiracy by the developed countries to push their regime change doctrine. While it is commendable that Annan acknowledges the importance of the rule of law and respect for human rights, it is also regrettable that he failed to use his position as the SG of the UN to push this agenda. Indeed, the UN has not only been reduced to a spectator of the onslaught perpetrated by many of the African governments against their citizens but has become irrelevant in the quest for a new deal for Africans founded on the principles on which the UN was established. If one were to grade Annan’s performance on the defining issues of human rights and rule of law in Africa, I am not sure whether the UN under his leadership will pass the mark.
Under Annan, we have seen the UN lose focus while the P5 countries (permanent members of the Security Council) fight over supremacy at the same time a new force emerging in Africa and other developing countries determined to undermine the consensus that the rule of law is a fundamental sine qua non for development. On the Zimbabwean issue, the UN was tested and found wanting. It is interesting to observe that during Annan’s last week at the UN, developments in Zimbabwe, if any, confirm the reverse logic to what Annan believes to be important for development.
Yes, it may be true that President Mugabe is the only one uniquely positioned to ensure a united Zanu PF and provide a defense against the regime change practitioners i.e. President Bush and Prime Minister Blair, and, therefore, the constitution of the country should be changed to protect the ruling party against disintegration. It has been argued in Zimbabwe that harmonisation of the Presidential and parliamentary elections that will see the mandate conferred on President Mugabe by the people of Zimbabwe ending in 2008 only to be replaced by a mandate from the parliament that was elected by the people of Zimbabwe who were not aware that by electing this special parliament they had surrendered their right to elect a President of their choice for a two year period.
In the case of Zimbabwe, the main constituency of New Zimbabwe.com, the proposed changes that have been approved by Zanu PF at the just ended Goromonzi conference are quite significant for any opposition party that may have the mistaken impression that there is going to be a change of government in 2010. By reversing the reforming the constitution of Zimbabwe through the back door i.e. having a President elected by Parliament, Zanu PF has effectively responded to the key issue that led to the formation of the opposition party, MDC, by now making a President accountable to Parliament. Under the current constitution of Zimbabwe, President Mugabe is accountable to the people of Zimbabwe who in any event elected him.
However, under the proposed changes, President Mugabe will have to be accountable to Parliament from 2008 through 2010 and thereafter it seems likely that the President will be elected by Parliament. Under this scenario, Zanu PF will no longer need a powerful leader but a powerful party and the prospect for individuals however popular from ever becoming Presidents of Zimbabwe will be remote. It may not be surprising to see the emergence of a Prime Minister also elected by Parliament coming back into Zimbabwean life after 2010 with the proviso that President Mugabe as the founding father will retain his powers during the transitional period after the people’s direct mandate will have ended.
It is important to note that technically there is nothing illegal or constitutional about what Zanu PF is proposing to do. It is instructive that the genesis of the constitutional changes appears to come from President Mugabe. Having decided that his legacy was not safe with a change of guard, he then managed to start where any leader facing the same challenge would i.e. his club (Zanu PF). The President was generous enough to inform Canadians first through an interview and this was then followed by Nathaniel Manheru in a state newspaper where in his weekly column he presented the prospect of a constitutional change as fact. This was then followed rightly by the provincial Zanu PF structures that passed resolutions to endorsing the wish of the President. The resolution was then passed at the conference and the notion that there is no vacancy in Zanu PF is real and nothing should be read to mean that Zanu PF is saying that there is no vacancy at the national level.
All that was said that is that in Zanu PF, members of the club are fully aware that in the face of regime change agendas and a fragmented foreign inspired opposition as described by Zanu PF, there is no better leader to see the party through the turbulence than President Mugabe. On the face of it, there is nothing undemocratic about this and the opposition forces are free to choose their own leaders and organise themselves accordingly. However, because Zanuj PF has a two third majority in Parliament, there is nothing to stop the constitutional amendments being effected. In the circumstances, there is nothing that the opposition can legally do to stop Zanu PF from making the changes. If one assumes that the elections were free and fair to elect the current parliament, then under the constitution of Zimbabwe, the power to amend the country’s constitution is vested in the parliament. In as much as the opposition may not like the development, there is nothing at law that they can do.
Some may argue that the attention paid by both the domestic and international market about the Zanu PF conference goes a long way towards confirming that the party is the only deal in Zimbabwe and the opposition is irrelevant. Equally some argue that by focusing attention on the succession issue in Zanu PF, the market indirectly influenced the party to come up with a strategic defense initiative in the form of a poison pill. The revisiting of the constitution, has effectively positioned the party to remain relevant while benefiting from President Mugabe’s anti-imperialist rhetoric.
The real victim ultimately of all the machinations may end up being the people of Zimbabwe whose prosperity has been sacrificed in the interests of political expediency. It would be interesting to get Annan’s comments on the developments in Zimbabwe and locate the role of the UN in aiding and abetting the outcome. It is true that Zimbabwe is not on the agenda of the UN and it is unlikely that there will be any basis on which a sovereign nation purely acting within the confines of its own laws would be a subject of international discussion. The crafty manner in which Zanu PF has managed to deal with the succession issue will undoubtedly provide a demonstration case for other leaders and parties that may face the same challenges. In the end, Africans will be the football while the players continue to play a game that has no rules and developmental focus.
Zimbabwe has the global name recognition and, therefore, deserves the attention of Africans not only because the issues are transportable but because it has emerged as a theatre where there is a perception that citizens are inherently incapable of deciding what is in their interests to the extent that any opposition is labeled as a surrogate of imperialist forces who are determined to effect regime change for their own strategic interests. In the fight for what is vaguely defined as sovereignty, it is argued that the respect of human rights and the rule of law must be subordinated. If this logic is accepted as demonstrated in Goromonzi, then Africa and Africans will continue to pay the ultimate price in form of declining standards of living, unemployment, decaying institutions, dysfunctional systems, and failed states.
Zimbabwe’s economy like many African economies continues to be in the intensive care while political expediency takes a centre stage. It is important to recognize that Zanu PF endorsed Murerwa’s allegation regarding the poisonous actions of the RBZ. There is now a new term in the Zimbabwe i.e. quasi, quasi, quasi referring to the outsourcing of the government functions to the RBZ with no accountability measures in place. It is also interesting to note that the confidentiality premise on which many governments operate has been permanently damaged by the RBZ by publishing confidential correspondence in the media in defense of partisan positions.
It is also instructive to learn that although Reserve Bank governor Gideon Gono, in his defence, appeared to be saying that he was only acting on instructions from Murerwa by what appears to be reckless spending of the nation’s resources outside the budgetary framework, he nevertheless defended the interventions as if to suggest that he orchestrated President Mugabe to direct Murerwa to put instructions in writing in anticipation of using the same correspondence later in defense. Many have argued that Murerwa could not issue instructions to Gono without President Mugabe knowing.
Already the President has confirmed that he believes that the economy is under siege and, therefore, textbook solutions are unwelcome. In the circumstances, the rule of law cannot be expected to be respected in the manner described by Mr. Annan. It appears that Zimbabwe according to Gono and President Mugabe requires a different medicine and the role of parliament, political parties and the judiciary will need to be fine tuned to reflect the imperatives of the time. In the final analysis the people of Zimbabwe still have to pay when two elephants fight for supremacy. In the case of Zimbabwe, the President has defined the two elephants as President Bush representing the regime change platform and him representing the sovereign right of Zimbabwe to decide its own destiny.
As Africans approach the festive season and prepare for the New Year, I hope that they will take time to reflect on the challenges being presented by Zimbabwe to governance, rule of law and human rights. In the end it is not Zimbabweans who are exclusively affected but all Africans who will have to be judged by actions of a neighbor and friend who makes choices that have multigenerational implications and consequences. The choice to make Africa live up to the expectations of its citizens lies with Africans themselves and within nation states like Zimbabwe lies with all who believe that a functioning Zimbabwe is indeed an African priority.

The Africa we deserve

ACCORDING to the World Bank, Africa remains the world’s biggest development challenge and yet surprisingly Africans have not woken up to the fact that the destiny of the continent can only be shaped and determined by them.
While Africa’s leaders continue to occupy their minds on how best to insult the rich and developed countries, there appears to be no visible attempt by Africans across the continent to take ownership of the development challenges that confront the continent.
In the face of a global architecture that is fatigued by the dependency syndrome that has become a permanent feature of many African countries, many African governments are increasingly looking to the newly industrialized eastern countries for salvation. What is striking is that there appears to be no attempt by African state and non-state actors to define the kind of architecture that should inform the new Africa.
Like prostitutes, many African state actors have abdicated from the responsibility of championing the African renaissance electing to auctioning and mortgaging the continent’s resources to anyone who sings from the same anti-imperialist hymn book. Asia and Latin America have seen the glaring vacuum in Africa and the apparent inability of Africans to take ownership of their destiny with potentially disastrous consequences for the African brand.
'What kind of Africa do Africans want?' is a question that requires a pan African response. Any person who shares the African heritage should be concerned about the African condition and should be aware that if Africa does not work for its people, they are equally at risk of undermining their own ability to protect and sustain their rights in an increasingly competitive global environment that is characterized by strong national brands.
The responsibility to map out a future for Africa should not be the exclusivity of state actors who in many cases are blinded by their own inadequacies and nationalistic propaganda but should occupy the minds of all who recognize that Africa is a home for many who share the black pigmentation in the majority. There is no other continent in the world like Africa where Africans have been provided with a theatre to give themselves an identity that is challenged by Africa’s promise.
With 54 nation states, the urgency and the need for Africa to come up with a single defining message of what kind of continent it should be and what its expectations from global partners are cannot be overstated.
I could not think of a better topic than what kind of Africa Africans deserve and who should define its architecture for my first article in the last month of 2006. Only last week we celebrated the World Aids Day and an African broadcaster, Dali Mpofu, CEO of SABC, was elected as Chairman of the Leadership Committee of the Global Media Aids Initiative (GMAI) that brings together about 150 CEOs of major broadcasters in the world.
This is an alliance of global media networks that have come together under auspices of the UN to harness their power to combat the HIV/AIDS pandemic. This alliance was inaugurated by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan in January 2004. Initially it started with 22 broadcasters and now boasts of 150 members.
The ownership of the anti-HIV/AIDS movement in both Africa and where Africans in the diaspora continue to be victims does not reside in Africans. Can you imagine that Madonna’s adoption of a Malawian child makes breaking world news while Africans remain cheerleaders with no visible response to the challenge of poverty and helplessness? We see the emergence of a new philanthropy driven by global business moguls and their political and non-state partners in their home countries driving the African agenda
We have seen Bono, Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, Gere, Angelina Jolie, and others dominate the African landscape of solutions with no visible African response. Equally, without the UN system, we do not see any African initiative in the making to respond to this real challenge. While HIV/AIDS has the potential to arrest if not cripple Africa’s ability to address its challenges, we now have an African leading the global branding effort to use the media for positive good and all we can do is to support Mpofu by creating our own institutional response mechanisms.
The world has responded by giving Africa three terms at the helm of the UN and yet it would not be surprising to see the outgoing Secretary General of the UN being absorbed into the developed world driven philanthropic organizations. I have no doubt that Kofi Annan will not be looking to Africans as source of his income or purchasers of his book rights. In as much as Africa has failed to accommodate its political leadership in business and civil society structures, I have no hope that Annan will look to Africa as a source of livelihood.
In fact, it may emerge that he will end up like Clinton who abused his two terms as President of the USA and could not make an impact on Africa only to emerge now as a champion of the continent’s challenges. The emergence of political leaders from the developed north as the official spokesmen of Africa poses a new threat to Africa’s governance that all Africans have to reflect on. Most of these politicians are bank rolled by companies that do business in Africa and the commission income that should ideally accrue to African businessmen is now domesticated in the developed countries.
The interplay between business and politics as it relates to African issues in the developed countries needs to be studied carefully by Africans who risk being marginalized. The only protection Africans can rely upon is through organization and to date Africans have failed to create pan African institutions choosing to look at the world from tribal and racial lenses.
As Africans reflect on their condition, it is important that we framework the agenda using the World Bank statistics of the countries that it serves and the location of Africa among the 5.5 billion people who live in countries that are classified as developing countries.



It is clear from the above table that Africa’s place among the developing countries is a cause of concern. Africa takes the lead in all the ills of the world. If one could analyze the above statistics and seek to brand Africa, I think it will challenge all of us to do something. African cannot and should not be confused about the root causes of the dismal statistics shown above. These numbers only demonstrate that Africa has still a long way to go and yet it appears to have no champions who can provide the required leadership.
Has Africa been failed by its people or has the continent been failed by the world is a question that all Africans need to answer for themselves. Assume that Africans in the diaspora are, for example, 20 million. Israel has a smaller population than Africa and yet Jews like the Irish and Indians in the diaspora have demonstrated that their destiny is intricately connected with their home countries. If Israel collapses, the consequences on Jews globally are quite severe compelling the Jews in the diaspora to regard the interests of Israel as their own personal interests.
As Africans we have failed to engage in conversations about the way of life that people of African heritage should have. Should Africa be a communist environment or should it be a capitalist environment? To the extent that the raw materials for politicians across the world are the poor people who vote, is there a place for rich Africans in Africa? Is the capitalist system the answer given Africa’s objective conditions? Should Africa have its own black robber barons? Given that most African governments who derive their legitimacy from poor people, is it conceivable that they would have an interest in accommodating a black rich class. How will they explain the islands of affluence to their voters? In the post Cold War era, what lessons have Africans learnt from the communist legacy? How do we explain the emergence of left wing governments in Latin America?
Africa cannot avoid addressing the key ideological questions that help define the way of life that its people should have. Even in countries like Zimbabwe, it is evident that succession is analysed outside the ideological framework. Zimbabwe has witnessed the criminalisation of business activity resulting in the unprecedented actions by the government to selectively target business executives and use the law to create a new class of enemies of the state.
Can you imagine that business executives have been arrested for violating price controls in an environment widely acknowledged as hyper inflationary? Under this construction, the approach adopted by many governments is to seek to sidetrack the attention of the voters by focusing on the alleged illegal and criminal behavior of the business community while ignoring the drought of political leadership that may be at the root cause of failed states. Is it the kind of Africa that we want where doing business can end you in prison for responding to the real and not imagined economic challenges created by political and other variables beyond the control of the new victims of Africa
Most of the targeted businesspersons are invariably black and in so doing the inventory of black role models in business diminishes each day. As the politically induced attrition of black business role models in Africa continues unabated, the future of Africa is at risk and the Africa we want may not be attainable without risk takers. In many African countries, it appears that the proposition that an ideology that undermines the rights of business is necessary a better one is gaining currency. Only the Chinese businessmen and anyone from the east is deemed to have interests that are aligned to the ruling class.
When Africa is strategic defense instruments in a globally competitive environment are being daily humiliated and intimidated, the prospect for a better Africa is severely compromised. While the developed countries are being challenged to focus on the African problem, it is incumbent upon Africans to reflect on the self destructive initiatives that have come to characterize African governance. Africa will never emerge when the way of life as defined by its current leaders is predicated on exposing its business leaders to risks that their counterparts in competing countries would not even imagine.
Who will make African governments accountable when the people who create such governments have not constituted themselves into viable interest groups that should define the minimum acceptable standards of governance? It makes sense for any political system that has run out of ideas to manufacture enemies of the state as a way of distracting attention from the core issues that should occupy Africans interested in progress. Africa’s future can only be as good as its people invest in it. No change will come without action and lessons are abound of what an organized people can do to transform a nation or continent even in the face of intransigent and formidable adversaries.

Gideon Gono: a villain or saint?

I WAS encouraged to learn that Dr. Gideon Gono, Governor of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe (RBZ), had agreed to use the New Zimbabwe.com platform to address questions from the New Zimbabwe.com family.
When the role of a central bank is put in its proper context, it is instructive that most governors would not take the evangelical or political posture in the execution of their mandates but in Zimbabwe there exists a unique environment that has catapulted the Governor into a quasi political animal with unprecedented exposure and profile.
In Zimbabwe’s 26 years as a democratic society, no governor has assumed the kind of power that Gono has and invariably his opinion and views have to be taken seriously.
In this vein, the staff of New Zimbabwe.com should be congratulated for providing an opportunity to interested people to engage in a conversation with one of Zimbabwe’s most important citizens. As I have always said, the only power people who do not have power have, is the power to organise.
Gono can boast of the vast resources at his disposal to spin and many may have accepted his use of unorthodox methods to address simple problems that confront Zimbabwe as normal and acceptable without critically examining the real and possibly irreparable danger that is inherent in the centralisation of power in a few hands with limited or no accountability.
The Zimbabwean economy has often been described as a patient in the intensive care unit and Gono has emerged as a specialist doctor to restore the life of this helpless patient.
Yes, Zimbabwe has known of only three black governors of the central bank since its independence but cannot claim the same in terms of its political leadership. It is common cause that Gono has been a governor for the last 36 months and his brief tenure will go down in history as a significant epoch event in the history of Zimbabwe. It is true that the role of the RBZ in the past 36 months may not be understood by many in the diaspora who are familiar with the institutional framework that underpins any democratic society.
Ordinarily, central banks do not deal with the public but focus on monetary policies and their clients are normally banks. Equally, the normal vehicle through which the resources of the government are allocated among competing interests is the budget and yet under Gono’s tenure, the RBZ now acts like a quasi-fiscal entity with direct commercial relationship with clients. No explanation has been provided regarding the basis on which a wholesaler can end up becoming a retailer without any institutional changes to support such a transformation.
There is a host of troubling constitutional, legal, political, and governance issues that arise out of the extraordinary role that Gono has found himself in. I will deal with these issues below using my own personal experience over the last three years. It is important that in taking advantage of the opportunity afforded to the New Zimbabwe.com family by Gono that the questions posed to him are focused and guided by national interest. With respect to national interest, it is important to underscore that this is a contested issue and there are many people in government that honestly believe that they have a monopoly to define what is in Zimbabwe’s national interest. Any person who may hold a different view is considered a saboteur and an enemy of the people of Zimbabwe.
In the event that you are considered to be acting against “Your Governor”, the consequences are clear and the benefits of compliance are self evident. I can safely say that the New Zimbabwe.com family may be the only constituency that Gono may not be able to inflict his poisonous medicine on but he is known to hold grudges with any person who may not see the world according to his eyes. It is instructive that the business sector in Zimbabwe has over the last three years been reduced to a docile force that is incapable of defending its own interests against an onslaught that is being perpetrated by the central banks through a variety of overt and clandestine activities. The supply chain role of companies and state institutions has now been taken over by the RBZ and suppliers to government institutions no longer have to go through tenders but only have to satisfy the RBZ whose capacity to be a broker in this complex business activity still has to be tested.
Patriotism
I have borrowed the definition of patriotism from the online encyclopedia, Wikipedia, as follows: Patriotism denotes positive and supportive attitudes to a 'fatherland' (Latin patria), by individuals and groups. The 'fatherland' (or 'motherland') can be a region or a city, but patriotism usually applies to a nation and/or a nation-state. Patriotism covers such attitudes as: pride in its achievements and culture, the desire to preserve its character and the basis of the culture, and identification with other members of the nation. Patriotism is closely associated with nationalism, and is often used as a synonym for it. Strictly speaking, nationalism is an ideology - but it often promotes patriotic attitudes as desirable and appropriate. (Both nationalist political movements, and patriotic expression, may be negative towards other people's 'fatherland').
Patriotism has ethical connotations: it implies that the 'fatherland' (however defined) is a moral standard or moral value in itself. The expression my country right or wrong - perhaps a misquotation of the American naval officer Stephen Decatur, but also attributed to Carl Schurz - is the extreme form of this belief. Patriotism also implies that the individual should place the interests of the nation above their personal and group interests. In wartime, the sacrifice may extend to their own life. Death in battle for the fatherland is the archetype of extreme patriotism.
Gono has successfully manipulated the nationalist pedigree of Zanu PF to locate his policies under a general umbrella of nationalism with a clear strategy to ensure that any critics can easily be labeled as unpatriotic with disastrous consequences. Most fascist regimes in human history have used the same strategy with national and international consequences. When you hear any governor of a central bank using nationalistic language as a way to advance unpopular policies and programs you should have to be concerned.
Rule of Law
The importance of the rule of law and not rule by law is an important ingredient of any democratic civilization. It is important that the New Zimbabwe.com family critically evaluate the multitude of decrees that have been promulgated by President Mugabe under Gono’s tenure to determine whether Your Governor believes in the rule of law. Surely, if the laws of the nation are inadequate, why would Gono not trust parliament to review such laws and pass new ones?
Against a background of a contested political space that has an opposition represented in parliament, one would not expect a governor of a central bank, itself a creation of the law, to act outside the provisions of the law using nationalistic and state of emergency language. I am sure that legal scholars are counting the number of statutory instruments that have been gazetted during Gono’s tenure and test such instruments against the Bill of Rights entrenched in the constitution of Zimbabwe. New crimes have been manufactured dealing with externalisation and corporate governance that would be offensive to any country that believes in a constitutional democracy. I do hope that questions can be posed to Gono on this regard. Ultimately, right policies induce good behaviour and policies that are informed by real national interest would respect property and human rights of citizens.
Corporate Governance at the RBZ
The RBZ is a body corporate whose functions are defined at law. There is a perception rightly or wrongly that Gono is behaving like the owner of the bank and his actions would not pass the test of good corporate governance. Examples are many that clearly demonstrate that the RBZ under Gono is no longer accountable to its board and in turn to the parliament of Zimbabwe. It would not be surprising that the parliament of Zimbabwe whose legitimacy is derived from the people is not aware of the full extent of the activities of the RBZ and how they are undermining the constitutional democracy that they purport to be upholding by remaining in parliament.
We have noted with concern the scandals that are unfolding at the RBZ including the Pinnaclegate, Fertilisergate and SMMgate all serving to demonstrate that there is something fundamentally wrong taking place at the RBZ. What is amazing is that the domestic media appears to have been sufficiently compromised to the extent that these scandals are not pursued to their logical conclusion. Can you imagine for example if a person like James Makamba was involved in the Fertilisergate, what would have been the attitude of Gono?
Selective targeting
The selective application of the law remains one of the key defining characteristic of Gono’s tenure. Although all men are born equal, it is evident that they are all not equal before the law. The reliance of private rational economic players on the parallel market in the allocation of scare foreign currency is well known and the RBZ is not immune from participating in the black market. However, anyone who is defined as patriotic is spared the humiliation and harassment by the RBZ using the law enforcement agencies.
Theft of Private Property
It is common cause that a constitutional amendment was required to expropriate land from the historically advantaged white settler community because the constitution of Zimbabwe did not have a provision allowing the government to assume ownership of private property without qualifying the Bill of Rights of the target group.
However, not all Zimbabwean land owners benefited from a colonial heritage and yet the definition of the targeted land for expropriation was not amended to isolate only those whose ownership was a direct result of colonial abuse. The approach taken rightly or wrongly was that all land should be treated as if it was stolen and, therefore, all land owners were brushed with the same broom. Having established that all land was stolen from black Africans by whites, the next step was easy and to date no African country has been convinced about the unfairness in the blanket approach adopted by the government and the consequences on domestic and foreign investor confidence. Due to the racial undertones of the land issue, people have taken a dismissive approach choosing to say that the end justifies the means. The national psyche has now been changed to accept the legitimacy of property rights theft by the state to the extent that most of the victims have found no sympathy for their plight.
Having successfully made the case that property rights can be undermined with popular domestic and pan-African support, the RBZ under Gono came to the rescue in the onslaught against private property. Bilateral agreements under which the property rights of foreign investors were supposedly protected were thrown out of the window. The RBZ expanded its role into the mineral sector and, indeed all exporting sectors, choosing to nationalize all exports and treating all exporters as if they were agents of the central bank. Agreements were revisited and control of the mining sector rapidly moved to the RBZ.
My case has been in the media and at the core of the case is the role of the RBZ in expropriating my assets. When Gono was appointed in December 2003, his first act apart from targeting the asset management companies was to announce a Monetary Statement whose sole purpose was to place all the exporters under the control of the RBZ. All dispensations granted to the exporters were removed and in return a new animal was born i.e. Productive Sector Facilities under which exporters were rewarded with concessionary financing provided by commercial banks on condition that they would be penalized with an exchange rate that was arbitrarily determined. SMM was affected by this move, but in hindsight, it was part and parcel of a strategy to create a standing for the RBZ to intervene in the affairs of my companies with the ulterior motive of nationalization.
To complete the plot, allegations were made that I had externalised substantial funds from Zimbabwe and that I was a fugitive. At first, I did not believe that Gono was the man behind all this and I naively called him to arrange a meeting. He strangely agreed to meet me and the executives of SMM. We met at his office on March 1, 2004, and it was clear at the meeting that there was a conspiracy in the making involving Messrs. Manikai, Mkushi, Munyati, Gwaradzimba, and First Bank. Although other companies were accessing productive sector facilities to cover their requirements, a directive was issued by Gono to deny my companies any access to the funding. SMM managed to access some funds but that was not sufficient. What was more disturbing was that Gono instructed his officers not to grant any foreign currency to my companies as a way of crippling them.
However, the companies were resilient and he then dispatched a team to South Africa to investigate the allegations of externalisation. The team was led by the former Commissioner of the Zimbabwe Republic Police, Mr Mukurazhizha, whose understanding of business is questionable. It emerged that this was just a witch hunt to create a perception that there was a case. When the team did not get anything, Gono then ordered that I be extradited to Zimbabwe and this was promptly done. The Attorney General’s office was made to work at the weekend to manufacture a case against me. Hilary Munyati, a former CEO of SMM, was given a job at the RBZ and the onslaught was in earnest.
When the extradition project failed, this was followed by attempts to retroactively create a scenario where SMM would be considered to be a state indebted insolvent company for the sole purpose of establishing a legal basis to nationalize my assets. Under the decree promulgated by President Mugabe on the advice of Gono, all the SMM bank loans were classified as state loans even though SMM never borrowed any funds from the state. What is strange is that in the decree the state was never defined. I have attached herewith correspondence (click here) between SMM Holdings Limited (SMMH), the sole shareholder of SMM that confirms my submission about the illegal and unconstitutional actions that have now come to characterize Gono’s reign. The letter of 13 February 2006 that is attached was never responded to by the RBZ and through this initiative; I do hope that New Zimbabwe.com will obtain answers to the pertinent questions that will help expose the corruption that is taking place at the RBZ. I now understand why people would lose trust in government if the actions of the RBZ in the SMMgate are anything to go by.
My case is one of many and it is important that we interrogate the hypothesis that Gono is not a villain but just a practitioner who is concerned about the progress of Zimbabwe and in advancing a national interest. I do hope that people will have the patience to read the attached documents and make conclusions for themselves.
I never thought a day will arrive in Zimbabwe’s history where the RBZ would act in the manner highlighted in the attached correspondence. I know that Gono will try to make the case that the SMM matter was concocted above him and that the RBZ was just a facilitator in the expropriation of my assets but the evidence suggests otherwise. How can SMM’s loan from commercial banks be unilaterally converted into state obligations without any due process? Why would Gono issue instructions to the RBZ to disburse almost Z$1 trillion (using the old currency) without any board approval? To the extent that the RBZ’s funds belong to the people of Zimbabwe, how can it be justified that funds are disbursed of this magnitude on the instructions of one person without any feasibility or viability study?
Although the Reconstruction Act has been aptly described as Mawere Law, the law now exists in Zimbabwe allowing the government to superimpose itself in commercial transactions and arbitrarily become a creditor to your company for the sole purpose of nationalising your assets. In my case, ZESA, NSSA, RBZ, and MMCZ were used as instruments for nationalisation and yet the four institutions are body corporates in their own right. It is important that all the people who chose to ask Gono questions take due care that their assets may be fair game if you decide to ask difficult questions.
It would be wrong to preempt Gono’s show but I just thought that it was important in the interests of Zimbabwe that I devote my column to raise some of the key troubling questions that Gono would need to address in the conversation with the New Zimbabwe.com family.

Africa's cyberspace challenge

BOASTING of more nation states than the United States of America is a continent that has significantly contributed to global civilisation through its voluntary and involuntary exports of its human and natural resources but whose promise is yet to be fully exploited and realized.
The African family carries a global stigma that militates against the repositioning of its people in an increasingly competitive environment.
While Africa’s relatively untapped human and natural resources offer a lot of promise to future generations, there is a real risk that unless the global African family realises that a lasting heritage can only be defined through collective effort, the promise of Africa may be inherited by non-Africans.
With only six years into this century, many have dubbed it the African century and yet there is no visible effort by the African family to invest in a new address.
An address is an important variable in human existence because it is a device that allows human beings in a network of humanity to identify and communicate with each other. Unfortunately, the involuntary African human exports, i.e. slaves, were not allowed to create an address in their new homes that could provide a platform for other Africans to make a connection.
In as much as the Anglo Saxons who ventured into foreign lands and created enduring addresses that provided them with a platform to create new communities, albeit connected to their native lands, Africans who went into the diaspora were systematically prevented from using their new addresses to attract their fellow brothers and sisters to build stronger and vibrant communities with any connection to Africa.
It is not difficult to imagine what was in the minds of the European pioneers who ventured into Africa. When they discovered Africa’s promise, they immediately told their kith and kin that they had found a new address that could be potentially rewarding to them. Equally, for example other nationalities like Chinese, Jews, Arabs, Lebanese, Indians, Koreans, and Japanese etc who have chosen other countries as their new addresses have demonstrated a capacity to build successful communities with supporting institutions. In doing so, they have contributed in building their own native identity as a people and in helping to position their people in the global matrix of development.
The need for creating a new African network cannot be overstated. Africans in general have not invested in their own corporate and individual address that is necessary if they want to be taken seriously by other communities in the world. Some have chosen to simplistically explain Africa’s dilemma as being a creation of imperialists and yet fail to explain the success of Asians in Africa.
In fact, South Africa provides a unique example where indentured Indians were imported to provide cheap labour in the sugar plantations have over the years managed to create an address for themselves in the country resulting in their assimilation in the political culture of the country. The Indian family of South Africa has created business address and visible geographical communities that Africans in the diaspora have failed to create and yet spent most of their productive lives as arm chair critics against the political confusion that characterises Africa. Could it be that the failure by Africans in the diaspora to create their own addresses may explain why Africa continues to invest in the blame game without taking ownership of its challenges and solutions?
If Lebanese people, without the benefit of a colonial past, can successfully confuse the whole of West Africa by creating their own African addresses why is it that Africans continue to talk about Blair and Bush as if they are the only causes of their plight? If anyone visits a town like Durban, then one can appreciate the investment Asians have made in being African and yet they may never get the recognition they deserve. I do believe that anyone who builds a home in someone’s territory is in effect demonstrating confidence in that person. For how would it be possible for an Indian, for example, who has built a house in Africa to export the same house to India? It should be common cause that Africans who are in the majority in Africa stand to inherit that infrastructure. If anything, the investment by Indians should inspire natives to do better.
Rather, the natives of Africa have chosen to export their skills to other continents while at the same time not adding value to the creation of a new value system that recognises the individual in the context of an African family as the centre of transformation.
Our generation is fortunate to live at a time when existing technologies allow us to network more efficiently and effectively. However, even in the cyberspace Africans have failed to create sustainable virtual networks and invest in new IP addresses that can add content to the global debate on interplay between race and development. I have observed that most of the Africans I interface with in the virtual world have wrong email addresses i.e. their surnames go as follows: yahoo, hotmail, gmail, msn, etc. We are not ashamed that we have failed to create our own unique portals and Africa sensitive addresses. Some of us have invested in creating new email addresses that can only be accessed through African content. It is important that those of us fortunate to be computer literate and connected in the cyberspace use this privileged to create a new African presence. If myspace.com; YouTube can show that through networks people can create their own civilisations and improve the content of their conversations, why is it that we are not talking about this as Africans?
We need urgently to take advantage of the intersection of three revolutions that are taking place in the world. The first relates to the revolution in video production made possible by cheap camcorders and easy-to-use video software. African should invest in creating their own stories and exchanging them as an integral part of nation building or what can be described as “Africanation”. The African nation is extensive and yet fragmented and not only angry but destructively envious of progress. There is need to showcase African stories using the video medium so that these stories can begin to challenge our leaders who have a tendency to look east and west when they should be looking at themselves and learn from their own citizens. Surely, Asians had to confront themselves and map out a strategy for their salvation rather than investing in excuses.
The second revolution that pundits and analysts have dubbed Web 2.0 is exemplified by sites like MySpace, Wikipedia, Flickr and Digg where people create and share information together. Unfortunately, Africans have not created their own space where they can exchange their stories in a kind of mass collaboration that would not have been possible without the internet.
The third revolution is the cultural one where people are impatient with mainstream media and the top down approach in which governments and talking heads spoonfeed passive spectators ideas about what is happening in the world. People including Zimbabweans want unfiltered news and hence the growth of sites like, New Zimbabwe.com, as a source of untainted news.
On my part, I agreed to contribute to this new culture by my weekly column that I hope will add to the required conversations that can make Africa a continent of hope and promise. It is my sincere hope that Africans can invest in their own portal and tell the world their own stories in their own words. However, we must start by looking at our email addresses to ensure that we are compliant as Africans.
To this end, Africa Heritage Corporate Council (AHCC) has invested in a networking site, http://www.ahccouncil.com/, where any person interested in making a difference on the continent is welcome to join and get an e-mail address. The site is structured no different from MySpace.com to allow you to add your content. I have noted that many of the people who have registered on the site have chosen to remain anonymous and in some instances refused to provide their photographs. I find no excuse for people who choose to provide addresses without the necessary useful information to allow the users to use such information to not only make a difference to the lives of the authors but others.
Imagine, we created a site where our photos and profiles are available as well as the profile of Africa’s companies and brands, what difference can we make as Africans who appear increasingly challenged by the lack of case studies showcasing their successes and failures?
We should not begrudge anyone who regards African businesspersons are crooks and criminals, if we have chosen not to invest in understanding the lives and tribulations of Africa’s business people. We need to start learning how it is that foreigners who have chosen Africa as their new addresses have succeeded in both pre-colonial and post-colonial times to distinguish themselves and give an identity to their own people without spending a lot of energy winging about why things are not working. A new value system for Africans can only come about if Africans start by sharing selflessly their unique life experiences so that its people can draw inspiration where appropriate.
Finally, the ability of Africans to create their own vibrant virtual communities is not contingent on African governments. The few Africans who are privileged to communicate with the world have an obligation to use their time and resources to collectively create new images that can locate the African family in a continuum of human progress rather than in a residue of despair and hopelessness. I believe that we collectively owe it to our future generations to act creatively and use our collective presence in the virtual world to demonstrate something positive about us as Africans. It is important that we recognise that Perception is King.
The cyberspace is available and all we have to do is put our content in a portal that can help locate us where others have shown the lead.

Africa's brand challenge

PERCEPTION is King; and in the case of Africa, there is so little global knowledge about individual African countries to the extent that every country ends up sharing the same reputation of civil strife, corruption and poverty.
In as much as individual African countries and persons who share an African heritage may try to distance themselves from the generally perception of Africans, Africans cannot avoid being painted by the same brush.
As Africans continue to mourn about why they are perceived lowly in the global development chain, it is important that we recognize that Africans and its people wherever they may be have not invested in better communicating who they are to the global audience. Although some Africans have done exceptionally well as individuals, body corporates and nation states, they cannot avoid being contaminated by the African image disease.
The need for Africa and its global family to communicate, differentiate and symbolise itself to all the global audience of consumers and investors cannot be overstated. It is very important to underline that the audience is split into two major categories: African people and everyone else.
In the case of Africa, government leaders are more concerned about improving the image of the continent to foreigners than invest in image building targeted at citizens. Ultimately, the hope of Africa and its global family lies in investing in a new identity of a functioning Africa than a selective approach where islands of hope are created in the midst of an ocean of hopelessness and misery.
Every African nation has its own brand in as much as each individual and family has theirs. A nation's brand is defined by its people, by their temper, education, look, by their endeavors. Africa with one geographical mass and many tribes has its own identity and it is not easy to come up with a one size fits all perspective on branding. It is very hard to change African people’s values and attitude to life. This requires an investment in literacy, a change in the economic status of Africans, and a new way of life. This takes generations to change but can be fast tracked by the few Africans who realise that it is in their self interest to work towards the collective transformation of Africa and its global family.
Africans need to write their own story in the own words. We need to ask why it is the case that non-Africans have the last laugh in Africa and its own natives have to bear the brunt of bad governance and policies. Africa and its leaders are more than eager to export African jobs through policies that reward imports and welcome foreign capital in preference to domestic capital formation while maintaining an anti-imperialist hypocritical posture.
The improvement of the Africa brand lies not in the work of branding agencies, not even of governments but instead in every person who shares Africa’s heritage and we need to invest in making Africa and its global family’s values being better known, minimise the effect of several accidents caused by individuals that affect the brand. Africa has a fair share of bad leaders who intentionally and unintentionally have made the African story difficult to sell and as long as they cling to power for the wrong reasons the job is cut out for all of us. Africa’s development and the advancement of its people will continue to be arrested by the few who have taken it upon themselves to monopolize the political and economic space whose enlargement is a prerequisite for the establishment of a new African identity.
Historically, nation branding and invention of tradition has always happened by accident more than continuous economic planning. Singapore, Malaysia, South Korea, China, India, Vietnam, Japan, New Zealand, Australia etc have created and represented much more consistent brand leadership than exhibited by most global companies. What is important is that some countries with the same colonial baggage as Africa took ownership of their own destinies and invested in new brand architectures that have resulted in the improvement of standing of their citizens in the global family of nations.
The Japanese have changed the global language by producing products that have now been accepted in the world as representing good quality and today the world speaks the Japanese language through the consumption of products produced in Japan. Equally countries like South Korea have demonstrated that a determined people can in one generation be accommodated in the global marketplace on its terms through the production of quality products and not through speeches that have now been the defining characteristic of African leaders at every opportunity they can get. To my knowledge South Korea still hosts American troops and yet did not use this as an excuse to invest in a uniquely Korean brand. If South Korea was an African country it is not difficult to imagine what its citizens would be subjected to in terms of propaganda.
Nation-branding as a discipline is the confluence of two seemingly disparate fields: marketing and diplomacy. In the 1960s, marketers became interested in what is called the ''country of origin'' effect. Why is it, they asked, that simply sticking a ''Made in Japan'' label on a stereo boosts its value by 30 percent? Clearly, they argued, there was something about Japan itself-perhaps its reputation as a technically savvy society-that made consumers value Japanese technology over similar products from, say, India. What are the roots of these national stereotypes, and how can marketing take advantage of them? And what if India wanted to develop its own high-tech export industry? How could it change those stereotypes?
In a world increasingly connected by 24/7 media, there has to be a ''brand'' strategy for Africans-the message has to be coordinated and consistent, and it has to respond to stereotypes already in circulation. Nation-branding, then, is what you get when you take traditional public diplomacy strategies and add marketing tools designed to change global perceptions.
True nation-branding is a complex and involved exercise that requires strategies to “harmonise” the brand message across African governments and communicating the message internally as well as externally. That means surveying citizens on the values they think should go into the ''Africa brand,'' as well as reiterating the importance of ''living'' that brand. The idea of defining and changing Africa's ''brand'' has to start with its citizens who stand to lose a lot if the message continues to be contaminated by bad apples which Africa continues to produce and nurture in their abundance. The way to address this issue is not through propaganda but through actions.
For Africans in general, it's very difficult to step back and listen particularly for the educated and affluent. I submit that this has to be the starting point. The first stage is for Africa’s people to first admit that Africa has a fundamental image problem whether caused by slavery, colonialism, imperialism, socialism, communism, etc that needs to be addressed.
One of the fundamental tenets of branding is consistency. We have only a certain number of chances to register in people's minds and unless each time we register, it appears to be making the same point; we don't have much of a chance. It's advice many African governments would do well to heed. After all, anti-imperialism and look East agenda is as much about rhetoric and symbols as it is about genuine development interest of Africa.
If Africans want to lead by example, then, Africa and its family has got to make sure that its message and actions are consistent. We have seen many authoritarians hijack the nation-building agendas of a number of African countries because inherently there are authoritarian undertones in nation-building strategies. Africa’s problem is not just with its brand-which could scarcely be stronger-but with its product. If you close your eyes, and think of Africa as a place to do business, what images spring to mind? Poor, corrupt and hopeless? Or a developing market with huge untapped potential? Too often, it's the former, which is one reason why the whole of Africa receives less than 3% of the world's total foreign direct investment annually.
South Africa where I am now a citizen has blazed the trail in Africa. In 1998, government and business came together to create a "Proudly South African" campaign. The logo can be licensed by companies for products whose content is at least 50% local, and who commit themselves to responsible labor and environmental practices. About 2,500 firms now use the logo, and are starting to enjoy the benefits. It's all part of a greater focus on Africa.
The continent's economy grew by about 5% last year, in large part thanks to improving prices for natural resources, including oil. Foreign direct investment in Africa, while still a trickle compared to the amounts flooding into China, is on the rise too. South Africa is the youngest African country with the biggest white population of a little more than 4 million. South Africa through its corporate citizens has now become one of the few African countries to join the global marketplace with products and services that have originality and reputation.
As we look at Africa’s 54 countries and try to locate companies that were originated by blacks and are led by blacks whose products and services have helped to reposition the African brand, we struggle to come up with any meaningful names. Yes, South Africa’s companies like Anglo American, South African Breweries, Old Mutual, Standard Bank, Investec Bank, Dimension Data, Bidvest, Sanlam, BAT, (the list is long), have now become not only pan-African players but world class players who share Africa’s heritage. But at the same time, the companies are driven by individuals who would ordinarily be classified as foreigners in Africa. In fact, many of Africa’s people and governments are cynical about the role of South African capital in Africa’s renaissance and yet they have done little to encourage domestic capital formation..........................................................I bumped into one Zimbabwean politician who had read my article entitled: “Is Mugabe Corrupt?” and he expressed his views about Mugabe and felt that I should not even have asked the question because in his mind there is no doubt that Mugabe is guilty of corruption. He was adamant that Mugabe cannot and should not be absolved of the decay in Zimbabwe and he should be personally identified as culpable and liable for the mess.
As an individual who has also been identified by the state appointed administrator, Afaras Gwaradzimba, as culpable and liable for my own company’s affairs, I can now understand why my views in the article may have been a source of misunderstanding. I had not thought through the implications of Gwaradzimba’s appointment by the government of Zimbabwe to steal my companies under the guise of reconstruction. It was only after the intervention of this politician who maintained that if I can be held culpable and liable for the alleged financial state of affairs of my company by the government, led by President Mugabe, then surely President Mugabe should be held culpable and liable for impoverishing Zimbabwe.
He argued that it is imperative that Zimbabwe urgently finds an administrator to take over the affairs of the country and investigate Mugabe in as much as Gwaradzimba has been appointed to do. Incidentally, I was shocked to learn that this politician had actually read the Reconstruction of State-indebted Insolvent Companies Act 2004 that is now the law of the land in Zimbabwe that allows the government to expropriate private assets without following any due process of the law.
The law applies retroactively and what is significant is that the state does not exist at law begging the question of how a person can be indebted to a ghost. Under this law, any person identified by a partial administrator as culpable and liable will have his assets forfeited to the state without any compensation. I was encouraged that the intervention of the Friends of Zimbabwe Coalition on the property rights question has helped to open the eyes of many Zimbabweans including politicians who had a naïve understanding of the ramifications of this draconian piece of legislation.
This politician observed that if Mugabe’s government can steal companies in broad daylight how can I dare say that he is not corrupt? I responded saying that all I wanted to do was to generate debate on Mugabe’s legacy and have come to accept that the expropriation of property rights of blacks will also be part of the legacy. What was more fundamental in the observation of this politician was that if the government of Zimbabwe can steal assets and citizens’ human rights, why should anyone trust such a government to hold an election where it will lose?
I was encouraged to learn that many people are indeed reading my articles and to the extent that they are helping expand the knowledge base, I am satisfied that my intervention is directing Zimbabweans and Africans in general to think hard about what kind of future they deserve and how they should be governed.
In pursuit of this, there can be no justification of anyone prescribing what is non-negotiable. For what is sovereignty worth when a government can operate outside its own laws and how can the challenge of building a new Africa be addressed when those in power are working constructively to undermine it?
Without the rule of law and not rule by law, there can never be a new Africa. Africa can rise to the challenge when its citizens get the respect from those they have chosen or those that have chosen themselves to lead Africa understand the true meaning of common citizenship and the need to create and nurture a new African identity premised on the respect of human and property rights.
In pursuit of the goal to help create a new Africa found on new values, I am a member of the Africa Heritage Corporate Council (AHCC) and from now onwards you can reach me on my new email address: mmawere@ahccouncil.com. I realise that this mission can only be considered as work in progress requiring the intellectual and physical resources of all persons concerned and interested about Africa’s destiny.
I know we can create our own identity through enterprise and as Africans we can made the difference that we enhance our collective profile in a competitive global environment. Let us invest in challenging the consensus that Africa should be a conveyer belt for what God has endowed it with in form of minerals and natural resources to feed the world without its citizens taking ownership of their resources.
The governments of Africa have consistently underestimated the potential of citizens in preference for the promise of investment that is solely aimed at exploiting the resources of Africa. While we are being encouraged to look East, let us begin to look at ourselves.
As I have said before, the only power people who have no power is the power to organize.

Is Africa Cursed?

IN AN increasingly globalised architecture, post-colonial Africa remains at the bottom of the development ladder with its leaders groping for an ideological and developmental paradigm that can address the poverty trap and economic decay that confronts the continent.
Many have argued that Africa is cursed continent without explaining why God would be confused to endow the same geographical mass with a rich geology and resources that continue to attract the attention of both the West and East in equal measure.
It has also been argued that Africa’s problems lie in its people who are a cursed race whether they are domiciled in the continent or in the diaspora. Some have even gone so far as to suggest that the IQ of Africans is inferior to other racial groups. In locating Africans in the intellectual ladder, some have said that we rank as a collective at the bottom.
In attempting to explain the African economic and political quagmire, many have focused on Africa’s political leadership and its perceived lack of vision and the generally corrupt environment that is often rightly or wrongly associated with Africa’s elite. It is argued that Africa would be better off if its 53 leaders were to stand down in one day and yet it is not explained how the continent would be any different if its people’s eyes are not on the real developmental price. Having worked for a multilateral development institution, I am acutely conscious of the challenges that Africa and its people face in convincing the world to take us seriously as economic players. Africans are generally alienated from their resources and have not exhibited an ability to work together to resolve their problems.
The problem starts with the African address. Do Africans have an address? Who is an African? What defines an African? There is no consensus on the definition of an African. Are whites and Asians who have lived in Africa for generations Africans? Equally, are Africans who are in the diaspora whether voluntarily or involuntarily (as slaves) Africans? If we look at Africa’s infrastructural and institutional development, we find that countries in which the settler communities were in large numbers are generally more developed than those that were sparsely inhabited by colonialists. Equally, the post colonial era has not produced any significant transformation.
Notwithstanding the fact that a significant investment has been made in educating Africans, it is common cause that many of the educated Africans have chosen a western address as a theatre to apply their skills. In contrast, the European settler community that chose Africa as a home came with a purpose and they invested in an African address. Although in numbers they were much fewer than black Africans, they managed to maintain hegemony over the majority through a combination of an unjust political and economic order. What is inescapable is that they used their collective wisdom to build an infrastructure and institutions that were supportive of their civilization. They built European clubs and through such associations they invested in a networking framework that has endured even after they lost political power. What is clear is that we have not been able to support the post colonial environment with African institutions and also we have not been able to invest in our corporate civilization choosing to invest in political solutions only.
On the corporate front, black Africans are the majority in numbers and yet they have failed to convert their numbers into an economic force. If we look at Africa’s mining sector, we find little or no evidence of serious African players in the sector. Africa’s banking institutions are dominated by non-Africans and yet the consumers of banking services remain black in the majority. Those that have been privileged to get a good education, end up being arm chair revolutionaries blaming the whole white world and corrupt African leaders for the continent’s failure to deliver value to its citizens. We have not seen any serious attempt at building pan-African institutions by the black private sector in Africa. It is important to underscore that the colonial state did not create an environment that was tolerant of black capitalism and, therefore, some of us who now claim to be business people are conscious that without decolonization we would not have the privilege to talk about property rights. A new address was created for us to begin to talk about the kind of issues that transform societies.
However, it is also important to state that the role of black capital in Africa’s development is a contested issue and many of Africa’s leading intellectuals have failed to provide any leadership in terms of defining the role, if any, of black private capital in Africa’s development. We continue to hear that it is only the politicians who have failed Africa because they have no interest of the continent at heart and yet the same politicians are created by the public in many cases and in others they shoot themselves in state houses.
After almost 40 years of uhuru, Africa has not been able to establish a corporate address for its people. What is tragic is that unless an address is created that can act as a reference for existing and future generations, the ability of Africa to take ownership of its destiny will remain compromised. I have received many encouraging messages from the many who have read my articles. Equally I have been humbled by many who continue to ask me for help to finance their education and assist with their business endeavors. The same people are blind to the fact that on 7 September 2004, the government of Zimbabwe manufactured a law to nationalize my businesses and then proceeded to systematically disable me for ever challenging these draconian and illegal measures.
I have learnt to accept that people generally are not interested in other people’s problems but have an interest in ensuring that their interests are advanced. I took the decision in 1995, to incorporate a company, Africa Resources Limited (ARL), prior to moving to South Africa in response to what I saw as a gap in the relationship between African people and their resources. At the time, I had an option to set up a consortium but I decided that it was important to own the company 100% not because I wanted to monopolize the returns but because I saw Africa’s greatest challenge as that of institution building. Many business owners end up the loneliest people least understood by those close to them and yet selfless because the more they take from the business the less the business can grow.
Owners of businesses like Africans are at the bottom of the earning ladder as they are only entitled to dividends. Most of Africa’s best brains reside in intellectuals and professionals who would not want to be in the basement of the company in terms of earnings. They often prefer to get secure contracts while at the same time wanting to be owners. It is a challenge to get a crop of Africans who can discipline themselves and sacrifice their personal interests in building sustainable institutions. In my case, I chose not to declare dividends for the ten year period that I had interests in Zimbabwe before the invasion. How many of us would behave in a similar manner. The challenge I encountered among African professionals is that their primary preoccupation was on maximizing their personal wealth. There is nothing wrong in this but something has to give. For enterprise creation, Africa needs a new mindset and leadership.
In a sense, I am privileged to have been one of the few targeted by the Zimbabwean government. It is historic that a decree had to be promulgated to deal with my issue and the Zimbabwean parliament passed a law to allow the government to expropriate private assets without any regard to the constitution. This is a precedent that should be used as one of the case studies that Africans interested in business can use. My case is pregnant with many issues that should be of interest to any African interested in doing business in Africa. The African curse is in that we have refused to draw lessons from other people’s miseries in the belief that the same will not visit us. Through my case and those of others in Africa, we now know what we took for granted only yesterday i.e. the importance of the rule of law and the respect for property rights.
I have accepted with humility that some people look up to me for business guidance and it would be an abuse if I chose to retail my experiences i.e. deal with each individual at a time. I have chosen to wholesale my insights through my writings so that I can escape answering all the issues raised by the people who have generously responded to my articles. To this end, I helped found an organization, Africa Heritage Corporate Council (AHCC), whose URL address is: http://www.ahccouncil.com/. This is my new African address and I have decided to change my contact email to: mailto:mmawere@ahccouncil.comin the hope that all who are interested in better understanding the business challenges that Africa confronts can join us in creating a new address for transformation in Africa.
As living human beings, we are all actors and all we live on earth are stories of what we did. Africa needs a new identity that we can only help create in so far as business is concerned. Our appreciation of business and corporate civilization needs to be improved. We all have a collective responsibility to invest in this quest for a new identity. Yes most of us who choose to be in business are classified as crooks or cronies and never as principals in our own right. We need to build our own Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Rupert Murdochs, Samsungs, Tata, Mittals, etc. It is never too late for Africa to wake up.
Finally, imagine one day people who share Africa’s heritage decided to buy airtime from one source. How big would our corporation be? How many of us use the phone as a medium of communication? If we could use our spent in a constructive manner, we could set up Africa Heritage Mobile (AHM) for instance and use this collective vehicle to buy bulk airtime from networks in individual countries. Through volume discounts we can create a new mobile bank. This can be done and should be done. We should not accept the proposition that we are cursed and yet we are blessed to be alive in these interesting times when our leaders are selling our mineral heritage to the East in the sincere belief that we are not capable of organizing ourselves. It is important that we show our leaders that we can organize and invest in a better Africa.
For those that believe in change during our time, I encourage you to join the AHCC and become part of this new family of Africans. It is important that you choose AHCC as your new address instead of using hotmail, yahoo, msn and others without applying your mind on whose address it is. We are allocating new email addresses for members and all you need to do is to inform us of your interest in the service. You also need to create your own online profile.
We have also created a window that allows you to tell us about your company. For professionals out there, it is important that we create institutions out of our new address. There is nothing to stop you creating Africa Heritage Law Society or Forum, Africa Heritage IT Forum, etc. We can create an Africa Heritage Corporate Council Volunteer Corps where we all can donate 20 hours per year to make a difference in Africa. We can also create geographically specific associations like the London Chapter of AHCC. We need to be creative like the founding fathers of America who came from different countries and yet chose America as their new address. Look what they created. Remember: “The only power people who do not have power is the power to organize”.
I attach herewith an email I got from a friend with a piece entitled: “Global Economic De-Mystified”.
1. SOCIALISM: You have 2 cows and you give one to your neighbour.
2. COMMUNISM: You have 2 cows, the Government takes both and gives you some milk.
3. FASCISM: You have 2 cows; the Government takes both and sells you some milk.
4. NAZISM: You have 2 cows. The Government takes both and shoots you.
5. BUREAUCRATISM: You have 2 cows; the Government takes both, shoots one, milks the other and throws the milk away...
6. TRADITIONAL CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull. Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows. You sell them and retire on the income.
7. AN AMERICAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows. Later, you hire a consultant to analyze why the cow dropped dead.
8. A FRENCH CORPORATION: You have two cows. You go on strike because you want three cows.
9. A JAPANESE CORPORATION: You have two cows. You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk. You then create a clever cow cartoon image called Cowkimon and market them World-Wide.
10. A GERMAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You reengineer them so they live for 100 years, eat once a month, and milk themselves.
11. AN ITALIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows, but you don't know where they are. You break for lunch.
12. A RUSSIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You count them and learn you have five cows. You count them again and learn you have 42 cows. You count them again and learn you have 2 cows. You stop counting cows and open another bottle of vodka.
13. A SWISS CORPORATION: You have 5000 cows, none of which belong to you. You charge others for storing them.
14. A CHINESE CORPORATION: You have two cows. You have 300 people milking them. You claim full employment, high bovine productivity, and arrest the newsman who reported the numbers.
15. AN INDIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You worship them.
16. A BRITISH CORPORATION: You have two cows. Both are mad.
18. A ZAMBIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You call in investors to look after them for you and wonder why they are not sharing the milk with you
17. A ZIMBABWEAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You eat both.