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.
Thursday, December 28, 2006
Monday, December 18, 2006
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.
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.
Sunday, December 3, 2006
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
